UAObserver
 |
| The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Colin Kahl, is convinced that Ukraine doesn't need F-16 and long-range weapons in the counter-offensive against Russian invaders |
Russian military trap in making
There is a really bizarre situation. The Russian propagandists, setting the main noise background of the war, talk about the counter-offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine but completely forget about the Russian offensive, which, apparently, is curtailed. Wagner's Prigozhin declares the need to stop where Russian forces are and begin to defend already occupied positions.
Russian propagandists actively praise the Ukrainian army and depict Russia's future defeat in the decisive battle, thus encouraging Ukraine's counter-offensive. Why stop the Russian offensive and spread the defeatist scenarios? And is Moscow really scared by the Ukrainian army?
Not that simple. The Russian side relies on the Ukrainian counter-offensive to win as Moscow is convinced that Ukraine's army will lose without airplanes and long-range weapons.
Russia's calculation is that with predominance in the air Russian army will be able to stop Ukraine's counter-offensive, encircle unprotected Ukrainian troops and destroy them, and after that, launch a full-scale offensive against Ukraine.
Political decision-making vs. military
Despite massive Western military aid to Ukraine, Russia still has the advantage in airplanes and long-range weapons. Therefore, Ukraine's offensive on the ground without protection from the air benefits Russia's military enormously.
However, according to the Biden administration, Ukraine does not need either F-16 or long-range weapons in the battle, which is about to define the history of Europe. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Colin Kahl, generated the view during his visit to Kyiv in January, and it became the general line of the White House.
Even though the conclusion is bizarre and defies military logic. The armored vehicles and tanks without adequate air support are beautiful and easy targets for the enemy. This is a truism for any military, but it is still not recognized by the Biden administration.
The final military decision crucial for European history and Biden's prestige matter takes civilian Colin Kahl. Any military would never make such a decision because of education and experience.
Due to Kahl's nonmilitary conclusion, Ukraine is positioned to suffer a decisive defeat, and it looks like someone in the Biden administration is interested in it. There is no other explanation for these phenomena – to spend a lot of money on military aid to Ukraine and let it be destroyed because of the lack of vital components it needs to win.
Russian Reflexive control works
Urging the Armed Forces of Ukraine to attack Russian positions without appropriate weapons is suicidal for the Biden administration's internal affairs and the US political clout abroad.
The Biden administration not only deprives Ukraine of necessary weapons but bans Ukraine from attacking military targets on Russian territory. In both cases, the Biden administration offers a considerable advantage to Russia – the possibility of destroying Ukraine freely and with impunity.
The list of those interested in the defeat of Ukraine may consist of those who directly negotiate with Russia. Moscow knows what buttons to press in people's minds and how to recruit them and transform them into their agents - aware or unaware.
The range of means of influence is broad – from offering some irresistible incentives to intimidation and deceit. Russians use what is known as Reflexive control – the psychological technology of controlling the minds and actions of the enemy, making them inadvertently serve Russian interests.
The very fact of bilateral contact with the Russian side is already a risk factor. Russians are so versed in the dark art of buying people's souls that practically no one could resist them.
As for intimidation and deceit, Russia's specialty is selling empty air in exchange for significant concessions. And this is precisely what happens when Russians promise the West not to use nuclear weapons which they don't intend to use anyway.
Therefore, there is nothing strange that the Biden Administration has no coherent, rational explanation for the irrational refusal to provide Ukraine with necessary weapons. However, there is a bilateral consensus in the US Congress that the US should supply Ukraine with essential weapons.
First counter-offensive, then weapons
There is no rational alternative to adequate weaponry supplies if the White House really wants Ukraine to win, not play along with Moscow.
Providing armored vehicles and tanks without long-range weapons and appropriate air defenses looks like a deliberate special operation designed to destroy the Ukrainian army, the West, and Western military aid to Ukraine to stop it.
The suggestion, "Let's see how successful the counter-offensive will be and then decide whether to offer F-16 and long-range weapons," sounds like a bad joke. Nobody could resurrect the Ukrainian army after destroying it in the intentionally destructive counter-offensive.
Historical catastrophe in making
From a historical perspective, if the West had provided such selective assistance to the Soviet Union during World War II, Hitler would have won. A new Hitler in the Kremlin is preparing to defeat the Ukrainian army.
Urging the Armed Forces of Ukraine to attack Russian positions without the necessary weapons will be an epic failure in American history.
Biden's encouraging rhetoric about unlimited American support to Ukraine means something only being accompanied by appropriate weapons. Otherwise, it only deflates Biden's and America's clout worldwide. Now, when authoritarian regimes conspire to destroy Western civilization, the West, as never before, needs a decisive victory in Ukraine. And the Ukrainian army is ready to deliver it. The West should do its part.
Only a decisive victory in Ukraine can show the world that the West, with its values and principles, still exists and is alive, which, unfortunately, many countries have started doubting lately.
No comments:
Post a Comment