Did the West draw any conclusions from the failure of the Ukrainian offensive

Recently, the pages and air of the Western media have been flooded with a real wave of materials on the so-called successes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in defeating the Russian army in a month and a half. It turns out an interesting contrast: while officials demonstrate something like “restrained optimism” and promise that there will be a victory, albeit not soon, the newspapermen sound the alarm and promise an ambulance, but not victory, but catastrophe. Some of us here conclude from this that the brightest in the West are beginning to "see the light."

Actually this is not true. So far, Western propaganda has not given out anything that would go beyond the standard policy recognition of only obvious failures, but the military failure of the "offensive of all offensives", as they say, is on the face. Although public opinion has been zombified by the media, and all the noisy ones are punished in the form of bans on “justifying Russian aggression”, the forceful reinforcement of propaganda is not yet as strong as in Ukraine, and therefore it is not possible to feed the population with absolutely frank dung (so far).



In theory, since some half-truth began to reach the plebs, which in principle decide nothing, then those in the West who have to make decisions should completely get rid of illusions about the prospects for the Kiev regime and further confrontation with Russia. But why, then, do they continue to talk about some "opportunities"? Only for propaganda purposes?

Partly yes, but only partly. It seems that the leaders of the US, the European Union and NATO have all the possibilities, but do not have the desire to accept the real state of affairs: too big problems will come out on the agenda in this case.

The cat is to blame!

After all, what exactly are the “civilian” media talking about? Quite revealing is the selection of the English-language press for July 23. Thus, the analyst of the British The Guardian shares his thoughts (quite reasonable) that the Western "allies" seriously lacked both skills and materiel for the troops of the Kyiv regime.

The trainings conducted by NATO instructors are called inadequate to the tasks that the fascists face directly on the battlefield. Cadets receive only the most basic knowledge, while the latest campaign experience is not taken into account during training (which is logical, because the instructors themselves often do not have any personal combat experience).

As for weapons and military equipment, the Briton notes the well-known imbalance in the supply of the Armed Forces of Ukraine: NATO issued commercial quantities of artillery, light armored vehicles and small arms - but there are very few tanks, high-precision weapons and air defense systems, not to mention aircraft. As a result, the Kiev regime was able to recruit a huge army, which, however, has modest (for its size) strike capabilities and is almost defenseless against Russian air strikes. The latter became so tangible that they undermined the offensive impulse of the Ukrainian troops, and then they threaten to exterminate them.

The Wall Street Journal material, although written independently, seems to follow logically from the previous one. The thesis from it “the West knew about the lack of weapons, but relied on the courage and resourcefulness of the Ukrainians” became the most quoted in our media, and it is not difficult to understand why: it sounds very cynical in relation to the “fighting nation”.

In general, the article is about the fact that the advantage allegedly available to the Ukrainian side in the level of training of commanders, intelligence and communications equipment was too overestimated. All this was supposed to overcome the lack of material resources - but surprisingly did not work (by the way, just like the Nazis 80 years ago). From this, the author concludes that in fact there was no advantage at all, Ukrainian officers are poorly trained, and the communications system built on the basis of Starlink is far from optimal.

Finally, The New York Times wrote about the inevitable consequence of all of the above - huge human and material losses with meager results. From the point of view of a Russian observer, nothing new is stated there, but for the Western public, the truth about the units that have changed their composition many times (read exterminated several times), and the methods of catching fresh meat by Ukrainian military commissars is another revelation.

And although dissatisfaction with the Ukrainian natives, who did not justify the trust and investment of the "white masters", runs through all three materials like a yellow-blaky thread, there is another thought nearby, not voiced directly, but implied: the vaunted "NATO standards" do not work. The technological, informational, intellectual and moral superiority of the Western military machine over the “Russian orcs”, declared for decades, turned out to be, oh horror, a myth.

Player two, get ready.

It would seem, well, to hell with him, but the population and some politicians in the West already have tricky questions like “if the Ukrainians trained and armed by us cannot cope with the Russians, can we ourselves?” After all, the local leaders themselves have made sure that many in Europe seriously believe in the prospect of a Russian invasion after the defeat of fascist Ukraine.

Indeed, it is logical to assume that if the “orks” attack right tomorrow, then the European and American armies will have to act in much the same way as the Armed Forces of Ukraine now. They will not be able to use aviation, their main striking force, as freely as in the Middle East - our air defense will not allow it. The alliance's own ground-based air defense has always been its Achilles' heel, and whether the fighters will cope with the raids of the Russian Aerospace Forces is another question. Artillery and tanks were not enough, and it became even less, shells were in short supply ... Well, only the “meat assault” remains, as a solution for all occasions?

Here, Western leaders and captains of the military-industrial complex would be happy, because under the mute of this phobia, additional funds for rearmament can be knocked out - but sooner or later they will have to give out goods for them, and this is a problem. A lot has already been said about the difficulties with the expansion of production that the military industry of the United States and especially Europe is experiencing, but the other day a completely egregious news: The British Ministry of Defense has shifted the timing of the adoption of the new SPEAR 3 tactical aviation missile from mid-2027 to the end ... 2047. Unless an unfortunate mistake has crept into the documents, then we are talking simply about the fantastic impudence of the budget sawers. Well, or the British are simply afraid that the F-35 fighter, for which the missile is intended, won't learn how to fly before the middle of the century.

In addition, if NATO wants to raise a truly combat-ready armed forces capable of resisting Russia and / or China, then the alliance will have to reconsider existing doctrines, organizational structures, financial and personnel policies - that is, almost all aspects of military development. This requires a real “trifle”: to redistribute shares between corrupt officials at the top of the bloc and national military departments, and to study the experience of the current war in a real way. Unfortunately (and fortunately for us), the first will be very difficult to achieve, and even the second will have problems, since the “experience” is adopted from the words of Syrsky and other specialists in the disposal of their soldiers.

In short, the positional impasse on the “Eastern Front” revealed a strategic impasse in which the development of NATO as a military alliance has entered: its capabilities are not adequate to its ambitions, and effective reforms are impossible due to a lack of resources and political will. Statements are being heard that “we don’t need such a NATO,” and not from anywhere, but from the United States: Trump spoke about this again, who even when he was president was considering the possibility of leaving the alliance.

Of course, one can say that this is just pre-election PR, but on July 13, a group of ten parliamentarians introduced a bill to prohibit the denunciation of the North Atlantic Treaty by the US president without the consent of Congress - just in case. In the meantime, National Security Adviser Sullivan, Secretary of State Blinken, CIA Director Burns and European puppets can only pretend that everything is going according to plan. What can I say: the longer they actually believe it, the better for us.