Before we start this video, we need to make one thing clear:
if Ukraine loses its war to fend off Russia's invasion and attempt to subvert its freedom,
it will be because the West collectively allowed Russia to win. More on this soon.
When the Ukrainian counteroffensive was in its planning stages,
optimism was high around the world. An influx of Western equipment had many predicting that
Ukraine would punch through to the Sea of Azov and split Russian forces in half. Some
even predicted that Ukraine would be able to liberate Crimea. The effectiveness of Western
main battle tanks was touted as vastly superior to anything Russia could muster,
and the introduction of Leopard 2s was all but a guarantor of swift victory for Ukraine.
To be fair, western battle tanks are in fact significantly better than anything
Russia has been able to field to date. This goes for Western IFVs as well,
like the American Bradley. While Western vehicles have been destroyed and knocked out of combat,
time and again, the news from the front are the same: Russian crews die with their vehicles,
while Ukrainian crews in Western vehicles survive to fight another day.
However, everyone but a select few significantly underestimated the
strength of Russia's defenses. Its invasion of Ukraine has been a comedy of errors for Russia,
but former general in charge of all Russian forces in Ukraine, Sergey Surovikin,
got one thing right before he was sacked for his support of Wagner- Russia couldn't win an
offensive war and needed to dig in and wait out western support for Ukraine. For months,
as winter significantly slowed down the fighting, Russian troops dug the most extensive defensive
works seen in Europe since the Second World War, with minefields in some instances hundreds
of meters deep. Russia put out so many mines that its Cold War stockpile actually began to
run dangerously low- and when these minefields needed to be significantly re-engineered due to
Western demining equipment, Russia actually ran out of mines across parts of the front.
Watching on, the collective West let Russia do all this completely unchallenged. Despite urgent and
frequent requests for long-range strike weapons to attempt to disrupt Russian defensive efforts,
the West continued to do as it has done since the start of this war- hem and haw
over what weapon might be considered escalatory and how many it could send
Ukraine without hurting Putin's feelings. Because wars against bloodthirsty dictators
have famously been won by avoiding hurting said dictator's feelings.
2 Even the process of sending Ukraine badly needed replenishment tanks was a convoluted affair that
required numerous rounds of political brinkmanship against a resistant Germany, who didn't want to
send Leopards to Ukraine for fear of what it might look like to see German tanks once again fighting
Russians on the fields of Ukraine- a reference to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in the
Second World War. This is complete and violent nonsense, and more likely than not Germany simply
wished to attempt to salvage a post-war economic relationship with Russia. This isn’t surprising,
Germany famously opened the door wide open for Russian interests despite warnings from the US
under President Obama that it was giving Russia all the leverage needed for blackmail. Sure
enough, when the war started, Russia immediately threatened German energy, with the process being
helped along by the mysterious bombing of the Nordstream pipeline. To their credit,
Germany did choose to rid itself of Russian energy, but it was a painful process which
has led to the country’s economy suffering to this day. Even so, if Germany was looking to
redeem itself for both its Nazi past and making the EU as a whole significantly vulnerable to
Russian economic coercion, then sending Leopards to Ukraine was the way to do it.
Ultimately it would take the British breaking the deadlock on sending tanks,
and a deal by the US to send the Abrams later towards the end of summer,
to get Germany on the same tank-sending page. But even this gesture by the West was insufficient,
and almost designed to set Ukraine up for failure. Again, more on this soon.
Expected to launch in Spring, Ukraine's counteroffensive was postponed time
and time again, eventually taking place in early June. Once more, this only ensured
that Russia could bolster its defenses even further, and the delay was squarely the fault
of the West. Slow to deliver badly needed weapons and supplies, Ukrainian forces faced the prospect
of launching an offensive on time and stalling out, or waiting for sufficient equipment but
giving the Russians more time to prepare. The results shouldn't have surprised anyone.
3 Despite the immediately obvious superiority of Western equipment, not enough of it was supplied
to even achieve localized victories. Ukraine requested 300 tanks from the west; instead
it got somewhere around 70- with a significant number of them being older Leopard 1 tanks. The EU
pledged a million rounds of artillery ammunition this year, and has only produced a few hundred
thousand. The US did send 124 Bradleys to Ukraine, and the vehicles have been overwhelmingly cited
as more effective than tanks on the battlefield- the Ukrainians themselves have touted the Bradley
as one of their most effective weapons on the battlefield, combining firepower with
maneuverability and protection. Open-source intelligence has verified 17 Bradley losses
as of October, with 5 being total losses and the rest being repaired or abandoned.
Outmanned and outgunned, Ukraine faced vast minefields and fortifications
months in the making. A combination of Western apathy, political squabbling,
and fear of imaginary escalation all colluded to ensure that it would be the collective West,
not Ukraine, which is responsible for the supposed failure of its counter-offensive.
But has the offensive really failed?
Early on in the fighting, the optimistic offensive ran into a brick wall of Russian
resistance. The Russian military, as we have famously documented on this channel,
is absolute clown shoes, but even a clown sitting in a trench behind a 300-meter-deep
minefield can be an effective and significant obstacle. Despite this, Ukraine was achieving
significant breakthroughs- until Russian artillery began to level the playing field. A traditional
advantage for Russia, Ukraine's call for weapons to neutralize Russia's artillery advantage had-
naturally- either gone unheeded or supplies have been given at a snail's pace and in low
quantities. The final trump card in bringing the first phase of the offensive to a dead halt
was Russia's willingness to sacrifice its attack helicopter fleet, with Ka-52 losses skyrocketing
as it threw them into the teeth of Ukrainian offensives. Once more, the west had failed
to provide Ukraine with adequate short-range air defenses capable of protecting its forces
over the front, leaving them vulnerable to these suicidal but devastating air attacks.
4 However, sensing an imminent disaster on the horizon, Ukrainian leadership swiftly pivoted in
their approach. Instead of seeking a breakthrough that would be unlikely to come, they focused on
setting the stage for the rest of the war. Utilizing counter-battery systems provided by
the West, Ukraine began systematically destroying Russian artillery, to absolutely stunning success.
Even Russian sources, such as General Ivan Popov, confirmed catastrophic losses amongst Russia's
artillery forces- General Popov complimented the effectiveness of Ukrainian counterbattery fire
and accused Russian leadership of betraying the army by failing to provide its own forces with
effective counterbattery capabilities. Russia's traditional fire superiority over Ukraine waned
significantly, and across large swathes of the front, fire parity was achieved- in some cases
Ukrainian forces even gained superiority. However, once again western failure to
provide adequate supplies meant that Ukrainian guns had to limit how much fire they put out.
5 By August, Ukraine had seen the writing on the wall- a breakthrough would be extremely unlikely
to the point of impossibility as the nation simply lacked the equipment. To make matters worse,
Ukraine faced a deadly Catch-22. On one hand, because the public had failed to identify the
shift in strategy and now viewed the offensive as a failure, Ukraine had to achieve some form of
victory to fight off 'Ukraine fatigue' amongst Western audiences. On the other hand though,
Ukraine couldn't afford to risk the equipment needed for such a victory due to the West's
political infighting over continued support to Ukraine. American Republican congressional
threats to cut off funding for Ukraine, including those by federal criminal defendant and former
President Donald Trump, meant that there was no guarantee of continued support- putting
Ukrainian generals in the impossible position of needing to secure a victory to bolster support,
but not being able to risk losing equipment that might never be replaced by securing that victory.
Today, the change in territory across Ukraine's east can be measured in individual miles rather
than the dozens or hundreds that had once been hoped for- but this doesn't mean the offensive
was a failure. Despite being consistently undermined by lackluster Western support,
Ukrainian forces still managed to inflict an impressive number of casualties,
with a three-to-one disparity against Russian forces. The fact that the defender is the one
that's supposed to enjoy a 3 to 1 casualty ratio only further reinforces just how bad the Russian
military is- and how very winnable this war is for Ukraine if it got the equipment it so badly needs.
At home, Russian morale is showing signs of slipping as groups of mothers begin to voice
their concern over mounting casualties. This is an alarming sign for the Kremlin, as it was Soviet
mothers who ultimately spearheaded the charge to end the nation's war in Afghanistan- and Russia
has already taken significantly more casualties than it did over nearly a decade in Afghanistan.
6 And yet, political dissent is so tightly controlled in Russia that it's unknown how
many more casualties the nation is willing to endure. As commented by Ukraine's top general,
Valeri Zaluzhny, if any other modern nation suffered the 150,000 combat deaths that Russia
has, it would have ended the war by now. This casualty estimate isn't widely accepted, with some
claiming the figure is closer to 50,000- but the point stands: Russia has a massive tolerance for
casualties. Life being cheap for Russians probably explains why their military exclusively wages
campaigns of war crimes as a means of prosecuting wars, and has for its entire modern history.
If there is a silver lining however, it's that despite a massive tolerance for casualties,
Putin believes it would be a political disaster to fully mobilize the nation for
war. He has been criticized by war hawks inside Russia itself, like Igor Girkin,
a former security agent responsible for the downing of a passenger jet over Ukraine in 2014,
who was arrested for criticizing the war effort. According to Girkin, Russia could not win this
war without fully mobilizing its population, and further noted that the massive losses in Russian
human wave attacks meant that the nation would not be able to mount a successful offensive in 2024.
There are many Russian mil-bloggers who agree with Girkin, while other voices within the Kremlin and
outside of it disagree with his conclusions. However, he may be more right than wrong,
as evidenced by the fact that Russia has significantly depleted its Spetsnaz forces during
the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Throughout this conflict, there have been numerous high-profile
accomplishments by Ukrainian special forces- including the now famous raid into Crimea that
resulted in the destruction of a $500 million S-400 battery, which subsequently opened up
a hole in Russian air defenses for Ukraine to absolutely hammer Sevastopol and the Black Sea
fleet through. Yet there have been no similar stories of Russian Spetsnaz successes- and
we now know why: Russia has been using its special forces as shock troops, throwing them into the
toughest parts of the front in either defensive operations or costly assaults. Telegram accounts
directly linked to Spetsnaz groups have all complained of significant attrition of personnel
and high losses, leaving Russia's future special operations capabilities in significant doubt.
7 However, the fact of the matter is that Russia simply has far more mass than Ukraine- and Ukraine
is starting to strain under the tremendous weight it's had to endure alone for nearly two
years of fighting now. While morale remains high, Ukrainian troops have not had many opportunities
to rotate out of the front or spend time with their families. Combat fatigue is setting in,
and many shell-shocked Ukrainian soldiers have no option but to remain at the front. Russia's
strategy to simply overwhelm Ukraine with human-wave attacks is working.
But it's not all doom and gloom, because while morale remains high for Ukraine,
it's inversely low for Russian troops. Many are increasingly questioning the war,
and resentment over being used as cannon fodder is increasing across the front. Most impactful of all
though has been the effect of Western precision munitions, which have the nasty habit of reaching
out well behind the front to strike with pinpoint precision at unsuspecting targets. Fear of Storm
Shadow and GMLRS runs high amongst Russian troops in the rear and the front both. ATACMs has now
joined the fight, and in its debut inflicted a crippling blow on the Russian military- with
an estimated $50 to $70 million in damage done to Russian aviation in just one salvo near Berdyansk,
and an airfield near Luhansk. Russia was caught completely by surprise by the attack,
highlighting the fact that the Russian military has yet to adapt to modern war.
This highlights a way forward for Ukraine to seize victory. The Russian military has
performed extremely poorly in the face of modern western weapons, and has shown
little aptitude for adapting its rear-area operations to mitigate threats from weapon
systems such as Storm Shadow or ATACMS. To add to Russian difficulties, its air defense systems
are experiencing significant attrition caused by Ukrainian strikes and special operations raids,
at long last opening up gaps in coverage that Ukraine can exploit with future strikes.
8 The arrival of F-16s in Ukraine next year will significantly upgrade the besieged
nation’s strike capabilities. The modern fighter jets will finally allow Ukraine to utilize Western
weapons, such as High-speed anti-radiation missiles, without having to jerry-rig them
onto current Ukrainian airframes, giving them the capability to more effectively target and shut
down Russian radar systems. Modern AESA radars on board the F-16s will allow them to target Russian
war planes at survivable distances, something that Ukraine's Cold War era fleet of MiGs simply cannot
do, and give them the opportunity to challenge Russia's current air superiority over the front.
And if the west doesn't chicken out and allows Ukraine to keep current Link 16 systems in the
F-16s it receives, NATO sensor platforms like AWACS could even guide Ukrainian-fired weapons
to their targets from stand-off ranges. This will be a significant escalatory step- if
Russia can prove a NATO asset was used to guide a weapon to target that is, which it likely can't.
9 Ultimately though, it's time for the west to ask itself, “what escalation?”. This conflict has to
date been dominated by fear of Russian escalation, and yet at every single escalatory step Russia
has failed to respond. The simple facts on the ground is that Russia is militarily exhausted
and incapable of leveraging conventional force against NATO. While it may be able to utilize
non-conventional means to retaliate, such as cyber attacks or attacks via proxies such as
militants in Africa or groups it supports secretly, such as Hamas, these are risks
that western nations need to balance against the potentially catastrophic result of a collapse of
Ukrainian forces and Russian victory. An extension of Russian power into eastern Europe would trigger
an immediate arms race in the region, and signal the weakness of western nations to defend their
allies and interests- only encouraging other bad actors to challenge the current global order.
This isn’t really an excuse either, as even now, Russia could successfully launch attacks on the
West through these proxies. Without aid from the US, Europe is completely incapable of responding
to any conflict even on their own borders, let alone far from home such as a major conflict
instigated by Iran in the Middle East. But the US faces its own pacing challenges in the Pacific,
and while still a capable and credible global force, a failure in Ukraine would
result in a catastrophic loss of faith by regional US partners such as Taiwan,
South Korea, the Philippines, and Israel- who all face their own and very significant threats.
The global peace dividend stemming from the end of the Cold War is well and trully over,
and the Ukraine war was only the opening shot of a new age of global conflicts.
The age of peace is over, and this is something the public needs to accept,
with the current liberal global order- championed by western powers and their Asian allies- under
attack by threats such as Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, and a vast network of extremist and
criminal networks who all wish to reshape the world in a more authoritarian image.
If Ukraine loses this, it'll be because the west allowed Russia to win- and will only
result in even more conflict in the future. But to secure victory, the west must supply Ukraine
with adequate amounts of equipment, instead of the drip-feed approach it has taken thus far. The
entire war rests on a hinge point, and victory is possible if Ukraine can strike deep behind
Russian lines at its vulnerable rear to create unacceptable human and financial costs on the
invaders. It won't do that with the pithy amounts of western arms it's been given to date though,
and it'll never succeed as long as the west deters itself for fear of an imaginary escalation.
Now go check out What Russian Generals Really Say About Ukraine War, or click this video instead!