Ukraine alters strategy after high-level NATO talks
4 Min Read
Ukraine is changing its strategy on the battlefield as the country is being pushed by the West to put more effort into its counteroffensive.
-
A Ukrainian serviceman of the 53rd brigade fires an RPG-9 towards Russian positions at the frontline close to Donetsk, Ukraine, Aug. 19, 2023 (AP)
In a strategic shift, Ukraine has reportedly adjusted its military approach after a series of high-level meetings with NATO officials as the Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russia has encountered challenges and stalled progress, The Guardian reported on Friday, citing anonymous sources.
Kiev was convinced by its allies in the West to modify its military strategy after its attempts to gain ground against Russia were met with failure.
Last week, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, engaged in a marathon five-hour discussion with Adm. Tony Radakin, the UK Chief of the Defense Staff, and Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the British newspaper reported.
The focus of these deliberations was said to revolve around strengthening Ukraine's counteroffensive efforts and devising a battle strategy that extends into the upcoming winter and the year 2024.
According to insiders, the outcome of these high-stakes discussions was a notable shift in Ukraine's military strategy. The country has reportedly redirected its attention towards the Zaporozhye front with the intention of severing Russia's land bridge to Crimea.
The decision to concentrate forces on this front marks a significant departure from prior approaches and underscores the influence of the NATO consultations.
In a bid to regain lost ground, Ukraine launched a much-anticipated counteroffensive in early June. However, the Russian Defense Ministry has asserted that Ukrainian forces have struggled to make advances along three specific directions: South Donetsk, Bakhmut, and Zaporozhye, with the latter being of primary concern.
The New York Times reported that the United States advised against dividing Ukrainian troops between the eastern and southern fronts. Instead, American planners advocated for a strategic concentration of forces in the south. This advice aligns with the recent shift in Ukraine's strategy.
Recent reports suggested that the failure of Ukraine's counteroffensive strategy led to tensions between Washington and Kiev, with the US pushing for more aggressive attacks on the south.
The US appears to be preparing for a war of attrition as limited progress is achieved on the battlefield, the Financial Times reported.
American officials called on Kiev to steer the fight away from the eastern direction and focus all its capabilities in the south, urging their ally to take all risks required without holding back.
In another report, Newsweek claimed earlier this week that Kiev was misled by its military leadership on the true extent of the country's losses in the counter-offensive.
Read more: Ukrainian weapons, systems losses rate on the frontline up to 20%: NYT
As of August 4, the Russian Defense Ministry estimated that Ukraine had incurred substantial losses during the counteroffensive, with approximately 43,000 troops and 4,900 units of military equipment reportedly lost.
A recent report by the Wall Street Journal shows that US and Ukrainian officials have been embroiled in a heated dispute over the best strategy each party wants to take to reverse the trend of the failing counteroffensive.
The US-Ukrainian discord became evident in one bilateral meeting when General Valery Zaluzhny, the commander of the Ukrainian armed forces, challenged the American understanding of the conflict. Zaluzhny was emphasizing the large-scale scope of the war which he felt the Americans were downgrading.
"You don't understand the nature of this conflict. This is not counterinsurgency. This is Kursk [referring to the WWII battle between the USSR and Nazi Germany]," Zaluzhny said, according to a US official present in the meeting cited by WSJ.
US officials assert that Ukraine's preference for small-unit attacks along narrow fronts is hampering the pace of the offensive. Such tactics inadvertently provided the Russians with more opportunities to respond, including deploying mines via artillery strikes and rocket-propelled grenade-equipped units.
