By Johnny Franks, Warrior Contributor
Once a beacon of hope, Ukraine’s recent counteroffensive to reclaim Russian-held territories ultimately fell short of its goals. The initial hope was not misguided, especially as Secretary of State Blinken reported in July 2023 that Ukraine had regained 50% of the territory previously seized by Russia in its invasion. However, recent setbacks revealed flaws and overambition in both the planning and execution phases. Leading up to the counteroffensive, U.S. military advisors played a key role in formulating a strategy that focused on severing Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine. This plan entailed mechanized Ukrainian brigades advancing towards the southeast, near Melitopol, and reaching the Sea of Azov. However, recent and extensive reporting by The Washington Post (WP) uncovered disagreements between the U.S. and Ukraine regarding the offensive’s execution. The U.S. suggested a direct approach to the Sea of Azov—demining Russian lines followed by a mechanized push—while Ukraine favored dispersing its units and armor across the entire front to mitigate heavy losses. The advantage of the U.S. strategy, an all-out assault with a focalized point of attack, would in theory achieve a significant strategic victory but with projected greater losses. Ukrainian officials hesitated to make such a commitment, highlighting the layered and intricate system of Russian minefields, dragons’ teeth, barbed wire, and trenches that are designed to inflict mass casualties.
WP reported that before the summer counteroffensive commenced, the U.S. yielded to Ukraine’s preference to minimize direct confrontation losses, respecting their familiarity with the terrain and Russian military. However, just four days into the counteroffensive, the challenges became apparent. The dense minefields, comprehensive Russian trench systems, and lack of air support for Ukraine proved detrimental. In some areas, commanders deviated entirely from the initial plan and shifted to small-unit tactics to minimize losses. WP reported Ukraine’s U.S.-supplied Bradleys and EU-supplied Leopard tanks often endured intense fire, especially when navigating mine-cleared paths. These units frequently faced anti-tank missiles and Russian air strikes, leading to retreat attempts that resulted in mine explosions and further attacks from Russian helicopters. The anti-tank weaponry and tactics that helped Ukraine stymie the initial invasion of Kiev were now being turned on their advancing brigades.
Ukraine’s resilience and strategic acumen should be commended in their defense against the Russian invasion, showcasing their determination to defend their homeland. Their efforts, though faced with challenges, have demonstrated significant successes against a formidable Russian military. This has been possible with U.S. and Western support, although there are opportunities to enhance this assistance. The absence of advanced technology like F-16s and long-range missiles, notable requests from Ukraine, has been a challenge, but it also underscores the potential for desired results with increased aid. After persistent advocacy by Ukraine, F-16s are said to be on the way. Ukraine has come a long way from initial reports fearing Kiev could be captured in days, but the outcome of this conflict will ultimately depend on the depth of U.S. military aid and the strategic potential Ukraine is empowered with.
Johnny Franks, Warrior Contributor, holds an MA from American University in Foreign Policy and National Security
