#UKRAINERUSSIAWAR. Minimizing the defeat of the Ukrainian counteroffensive is counterproductive but necessary


While the Russian social sphere speaks of the failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive, in the West they try to minimize what is happening on the front. Certainly it is undeniable that a particular progress of the Ukrainian troops at the front is not seen via satellite, quite the contrary.

Western think tanks have taken different positions but all try to minimize what is happening on the front: for example, to justify the failures of the Ukrainian formations in the direction of Zaporozhzhia, the American Institute for the Study of War (ISW) points out that “since June Ukrainians have captured the same territory from the Russian Armed Forces that they have seized since the beginning of the year”. However, the authors are silent about the fact that Russian troops occupied two towns Soledar and Bachmut with a dozen other settlements against eight villages taken by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

However, counting the kilometers of occupied territory against the background of confirmed Ukrainian losses already indicates in itself that the counter-offensive did not go according to plan, especially by the United Kingdom, which confessed that it did not expect Russia to mine the fields in the way that you see at the front. This kind of feel-good narration does not serve, indeed it damages the understanding of a phenomenon so relevant for the future of humanity, narrowing the field of Europe. And even before Ukraine.

On the other side of the fence, for example, the political scientist Konstantin Blokhin, a researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in an interview with Paragraph recounted how the failure of the “counterattack” influenced the rhetoric of the NATO summit just concluded: “The radical failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive did not affect the desire of the West to continue pumping weapons into Ukraine,” said Blokhin

According to the Russian political scientist: “They [NATO countries] understand that Ukraine is a strategic asset for them, for which they have been fighting since the mid-1990s, in which a huge amount of time, effort and money has been invested . It is clear that they cannot simply refuse to support Ukraine because the stakes are too high.”

The political scientist believes that the failure of the “counterattack” has led to a decrease in the enthusiasm with which the West supplies Ukraine with weapons: “Of course, the Ukrainians would like more, but even so, support will continue. It is clear that not on such a scale and not at the click of a button, help will rather stand out with a creak”.

The question that many are now asking is who will run out of ammunition first, as far as men are concerned, logically, the Ukrainians are destined to be increasingly outnumbered by the rather stable numbers of the Russian Federation.

Graziella Giangiulio

Follow our updates on Geopolitical Gleanings – Spigolature geopolitiche: https://t.me/agc_NW and on our blog The Gleanings of AGCNEWS – Le Spigolature di AGCNEWS: https://spigolatureagcnews.blogspot.com/