Hype and Hope in Ukraine’s Counteroffensive

W.J. Astore

“Certain Gains” in an Uncertain War

Ukraine’s counteroffensive is in motion; results so far appear to be mixed.  Today’s CNN summary had this to say: Ukrainian forces are claiming some success in their offensives in the south and east. Kyiv’s top general said this week that his troops have seen “certain gains.”

“Certain gains.”  Not only is the U.S. government sending Ukraine weapons and aid; it also is providing lessons in rhetorical BS.  How long before Ukraine speaks of “corners turned” and “the light at the end of the tunnel” in this dreadful war?

“Certain gains”: One thing that is certain is that maps like this are a sterile depiction of the dreadful and ghastly costs of war (Source: War Mapper)

Five days ago, the New York Times provided this short summary of Ukraine’s counteroffensive: As Ukraine Launches Counteroffensive, Definitions of ‘Success’ Vary. Privately, U.S. and European officials concede that pushing all of Russia’s forces out of occupied Ukrainian land is highly unlikely.

What is the definition of “success”? It sounds like a metaphysical puzzle.

Back on May 31st, I spoke with defense journalist Brad Dress at The Hill.  This is what I had to say then: “Sometimes, war is sold like a consumer product, where there’s a lot of hype and a lot of hope. That is contrary to the reality we often see.”

In our conversation, I reminded Dress of counteroffensives from military history that went dreadfully wrong.  Think of the first day of the Somme in July 1916 during World War I, when the British Army lost 20,000 dead and another 40,000 wounded.  Think of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944 in World War II, when the German Army threw away its strategic reserve in a last gasp counteroffensive that ultimately made it easier for the Allies to defeat them in 1945.  History is replete with examples of failed counteroffensives, especially when the opponent is prepared and entrenched.

War is inherently unpredictable (as well as being hellish and horrific), but it does appear that Ukraine’s counteroffensive won’t be decisive.  It’s not going to defeat Russia in one fell swoop.  Battle lines may move a bit, but the war will continue.  And so will the killing—and the profiteering. Is that “success”?

Mostly unseen and unwritten about are all the dead soldiers on both sides, all the environmental destruction.  Which likely will produce cries for yet more violence in the cause of vengeance. “Success”?

So far, the Biden administration has used all its influence, indeed all means at its disposal, to continue the war.  The only way out, apparently, is over the bodies of dead Ukrainians and Russians.  Not surprisingly, then, the U.S. is providing even more deadly weaponry to Ukraine, including depleted uranium ammunition and (eventually) M-1 Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets.  Escalation, in sum, is America’s sole solution to ending the war.

I implore the U.S. government to pursue diplomacy as a means to ending this awful war.  No one is talking about surrendering to Putin.  No one wants to abandon Ukraine.  Indeed, I’m at a loss when people accuse me of not caring for the people of Ukraine when my goal is to end the killing on both sides.

All wars end.  Ukraine and Russia aren’t going anywhere.  They share a long border, a longer history, and now a lengthening war.  Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to shorten it?

7 thoughts on “Hype and Hope in Ukraine’s Counteroffensive”

  1. I think the horrors of this war go beyond death, destruction, and immediate suffering caused by the fighting. It also is a major distraction from existential problems of global climate change, environmental deterioration, and species extinction that threaten the very habitability of the globe.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, an important observation; and one that seems lost on the very many who would on the one hand say they are concerned about such things, but who, because of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and years of Russia-gating propaganda, have been programmed to see Russia as the biggest danger to humanity and democracy.

      Like

      1. Yes, the greatest danger to humanity, I think, is not Russia itself but the nuclear arsenal possessed by some 9 nations in the world of today.

        Like

  2. “How long before Ukraine speaks of “corners turned” and “the light at the end of the tunnel” in this dreadful war?”

    “Ukraine” (meaning the the US/UK/EU/NATO-sponsored Interim Nazi Regime in Kiev) will have to come up with some truly creative mixed metaphors if they want to surpass what the blundering and bungling US military and associated “partners” came up with during the ruinous reign of Deputy Dubya Bush and his deliberate dive head first into the sand-trap of Iraq. See:

    The Tipping Point Turns the Corner (2006)

    and

    The Tunnel at the End of the Light (2005)

    Like

    1. To my fellow Vietnam Veteran Daniel Ellsberg: You have left us too soon but some of us will not forget you. Especially now that Julian Assange — languishing for years in a British dungeon — has exhausted his “legal” appeals in the lawless UK and faces imminent extradition to equally lawless America. What a despicable situation where “law” and “The Constitution” mean so little in actual practice.

      All I have to offer, Dan, is a little scrap of verse to speed you on your way:

      Star Chamber, Incorporated

      Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning
      Jailed as twin examples for the proles:
      “Look what happens if you publish secrets:
      More totalitarian controls.”

      In Chinese: “Kill the Chicken scare the Monkey.”
      Rat-out your colleagues. Do not Power tempt.
      Or otherwise the judges and grand juries
      Will hold you in what lawyers call “contempt.”

      A strange word-choice, indeed, by Power’s minions
      Who spend careers perfecting rank abuse.
      For them I’d have to feel respect much greater
      Before that is the word that I would use.

      I’ve nothing good to say for prosecutors.
      Some say I wish to “damn them with faint praise.”
      But I reply: “You praise with faint damnation.
      So which of us has coined the the better phrase?”

      Despicable, the treatment of these heroes.
      The US and UK have sunk so low.
      Still, Julian and Chelsea have together
      More balls than these two governments can grow.

      No matter, they have passed into the ages.
      Already they have earned a fair renown.
      Each day they live defiant, undefeated,
      They rise as jailers try to put them down.

      As JFK once said of his elite class:
      “The ship of state leaks mainly from the top.”
      But if some lowly, powerless, poor person
      Tries that, they’ll feel the lash. No truth. Now stop!

      To scare a monkey, kill another monkey.
      If not, the monkeys learn impunity.
      While eating KFC they ask, obtusely:
      “What has a chicken got to do with me?”

      And so the Corporation-State must silence
      Reports of its incompetence and crime.
      If citizens knew what it did they’d order
      its dissolution. Now. And just in time.

      Historically, they called it the Star Chamber
      A secret court designed to thwart the king.
      But power then perverted it to serve him.
      Grand juries in the US, same damn thing.

      They now indict ham sandwiches routinely
      With no protection for the innocents.
      Presumed as guilty, evidence not needed.
      Conviction guaranteed. No court repents.

      A judge may do whatever he determines
      He can. So levy fines. Coerce. Demand
      On penalty of prison, testimony
      Against oneself, alone upon the stand.

      “Democracy” is just a euphemism
      If citizens allow this to proceed.
      Orwellian: first Hate then Fear of Goldstein.
      Two Minutes, daily. Really, all you need.

      Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright © 2019

      Like

  4. “On The Failure Of The Ukrainian Counterattack”, Moon of Alabama (June 16, 2023):

    . . . [snip] . . .

    This then will soon become a huge political problem:

    As he heads into next year’s reelection campaign, Biden needs a major battlefield victory to show that his unqualified support for Ukraine has burnished U.S. global leadership, reinvigorated a strong foreign policy with bipartisan support and demonstrated the prudent use of American military strength abroad.
    …
    A muddled outcome of limited gains in Ukraine would provide grist for all of those critiques and further cloud the already murky waters of NATO and European Union debate over future posture toward both Ukraine and Russia. A less than “overwhelming” success would probably also increase pressure in the West to push Kyiv to negotiate a territorial settlement that may not be to its liking.

    There is little the Biden administration can do to change the grim picture. Congress will likely prevent it from openly using the U.S. military in Ukraine. The European NATO allies have now seen what the Russian army can do to its enemies. They will not be eager to see the same done to their own troops.

    That leaves negotiations as the only way out.

    The question for Russia is when and with whom. Talks with only Ukraine, a mere U.S. proxy with no real say, would be insufficient. It is the U.S. government that must agree to a new security architecture in Europe. The Russian conditions for peace will be harsh and it will still take a lot of time, and many dead Ukrainians, until the U.S. agrees to them [emphasis added].

    “It is the U.S. government that must agree to a new security architecture in Europe.” In December of 2021 the Russian Federation submitted draft treaties specifying the conditions for this new security architecture. The sooner the U.S. learns how to cry ‘Uncle’ in Russian, the better for everyone.

    Like

Comments are closed.