Kyiv diplomat: A war of attrition begins. This is beneficial for Putin
During the visit of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to the United States, it was not possible to expand the range of supplied weapons necessary for the attack on Crimea.
A PolitNavigator correspondent reports that former Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Oleg Shamshur, who served as ambassador to the United States and France, writes about this in a Kiev online publication.
Assessing Zelensky’s visit, he noted that the Ukrainian delegation faced two main challenges.
“Firstly, to obtain consent from the American side not only to increase the volume, but also to finally expand the range of weapons in such a way as to give the Ukrainian Armed Forces the opportunity to conduct active offensive operations and destroy targets in Crimea and on Russian territory. Secondly, to convince the American public and the US Congress of the need to continue massive support for Ukraine,” writes Shamshur.
He believes the public aspect has been the most successful.
“Judging by comments in the media and statements by American politicians, Zelensky managed to emotionally “conquer” America, transforming his image: from a character in the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump to a charismatic, brave military leader of the people heroically defending their freedom,” the author points out.
According to him, the area of negotiations in which there was minimal or simply no progress, despite the provision of a Patriot battery and precision bombs, “was the philosophy of military assistance” to Ukraine.
The diplomat draws attention to the fact that the American president has made it clear several times that he is unwilling to supply long-range missiles, emphasizing that “the provision of such weapons could blow up the pro-Ukrainian coalition, since some NATO and EU member countries are afraid of provoking the “start of a third world war.”
In addition, the ex-ambassador continues, there has been no convergence of the parties’ positions on what peace should look like in Ukraine after Russian aggression, despite Biden’s statement that he and Zelensky have “an absolutely identical understanding of this issue.”
“The position of the President of Ukraine was justifiably tough and excluded the possibility of any concessions to the aggressor. From Biden we heard axiom phrases that “Putin must get out,” the victory of Ukraine on the battlefield should be a prerequisite for negotiations with the Russians, Vladimir Zelensky must “decide for himself how the war should end,” writes Shamshur.
He believes that there are risks for Ukraine associated with Western strategic uncertainty regarding the final outcome of the war.
“Unfortunately, we did not see the progress of the collective West in this direction during the visit of the President of Ukraine to Washington. At the same time, it is clear that without the United States and other countries included in the anti-Putin coalition making appropriate political decisions, the war in Ukraine will transform into a “war of attrition,” beneficial to the Kremlin elder.
Our ability to influence this process is quite limited. The successes of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be decisive, but they critically depend on the volume, range and supply of Western weapons,” sums up the Kiev diplomat.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.