"The course of the war is changing in favor of Ukraine." What's next - offensive or negotiations? Discussed by Western experts

The course of the war with Russia has turned in favor of Ukraine,

and Ukrainian troops have a "window of opportunity" to launch an offensive in the south, according to one of the leading experts in the field of strategic research in Great Britain. In his article, Lawrence Friedman, emeritus professor of military studies at King's College London, says the reason is that the Russians are having trouble getting modern weapons and replacing personnel who are rapidly retiring. The British expert refers to the words of the representative of the Pentagon that Russia used almost 85% of its troops in Ukraine, thereby exposing all other directions inside the country and in the world. Also, according to experts, the Russians used more modern "smarter" weapons, so now they are forced to rely on older and less accurate ones. Meanwhile, although the Russians are trying to neutralize HIMARS, they have not achieved success in this matter due to the high mobility of the systems, which allows them to quickly move from the place of the shot. In the opinion of Richard Moore, the head of British intelligence MI-6, who is quoted by Friedman, the Russians "exhaled". Therefore, they will have to take a break, and this will give the Ukrainians the opportunity to strike back. According to the head of British intelligence, "the Ukrainians may have a window that they can take advantage of," because it may turn out that this is "only a temporary weakness of Russia."

According to the official representative of the Pentagon and the Ukrainian minister Oleksiy Reznikov, cited by Friedman, the Ukrainian military managed to hit about 100 "important targets" with the HIMARS rocket launcher systems - Russian command posts, ammunition depots, air defense facilities, radar nodes and communication nodes "link, as well as long-range artillery positions. After that, according to one Ukrainian battalion commander quoted by The Washington Post, Russian shelling decreased "10 times". If at the peak of the attack on Severodonetsk and Luhansk, Russian artillery fired 20,000 shots per day, now the intensity of Russian operations has significantly decreased. Accordingly, Ukrainian losses have also decreased, which, however, do not compare with American or British losses during their recent military operations. Offensive on Kherson or Donetsk And while some observers fear that Ukrainian forces are exhausted, lack the proper training to use Western artillery systems and a sufficient stockpile of ammunition and drones to locate and suppress firing points, Friedman believes the conditions are now in place for a counteroffensive aimed at returning Kherson. This city is vital to the Ukrainian economy because of its power plants and ports. Also, as the military expert notes, reinforcements from the Russian side did not arrive there for a long time, the city is not well fortified, and also has an active resistance movement that pursues the Russian military and local collaborators. At the same time, according to Friedman, Ukraine should ensure that the Russians do not become more active in Donbas. After all, he is Russia's declared target in this war. A massive counterattack or encirclement According to Friedman, the most reliable way to dislodge Russian troops from their current positions is "to carry out a large-scale counteroffensive, which will be accompanied by artillery fire using armored vehicles and infantry." On the other hand, says Friedman, this should not necessarily be the only Ukrainian strategy. It is still possible to make Russian positions so inconvenient, for example, by cutting them off from supply lines and surrounding them, that the troops will be forced to withdraw on their own. The Ukrainians, according to Friedman, rely on the fact that the 200-kilometer front line is too long to be fortified along its entire length. The Russians are trying to control some settlements and transport hubs on it. Another weakness of the Russians is the lack of intelligent commanders, who are very important in Russia's strict hierarchy, and who would prevent their troops from being encircled, the only way out of which would be negotiations.

The West may begin to press for negotiations As the British expert says, Ukraine needs a quick counteroffensive also because Western support may weaken. Lawrence Friedman does not think that Ukraine will receive less money or weapons. In his opinion, the danger for Ukraine is that Western governments under Russian economic pressure will be more inclined to seek ways of reconciliation with Moscow. Those commentators who point out that Ukraine was and remains much weaker than Russia are also active. They proceed from the assumption that the idea of ​​Ukraine's victory is illusory, and that US efforts would be better spent on a peaceful settlement. In particular, such views are held by Barry Posen, professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and director emeritus of the MIT Security Research Program, who in early July wrote an article in Foreign Policy magazine entitled "Implausible theories of Ukraine's victory. Fantasy of Russian defeat and arguments in favor of diplomacy". Posen's arguments boil down to the fact that at some point Ukraine and Russia will have to agree to a compromise - Ukraine will give up part of its territories, and Russia will give up some conquests and promise not to take more. Ukraine will need "strong assurances" from the US and the EU that it will receive military aid from them (weapons for defense, but not for offense) in case Russia attacks again. And Russia will have to agree that such conditions are completely legitimate. For this, the West will loosen many economic sanctions, and NATO will agree with Russia on restrictions on future common borders. "Ukraine's chances of winning a war against Russia are very slim," writes Barry R. Posen and adds. "Kyiv and its partners should give up thoughts of victory and instead work on a more realistic compromise," says a tweet by which Foreign Policy invites reading the article. Friedman believes that such an agreement would be completely unrealistic. According to him, the Ukrainians will not make any "significant territorial concessions". And the Russians do not show any desire to agree on anything. Friedman cites the words of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who said that new weapons in the hands of Ukrainians lead not to a decrease, but to an increase in Moscow's territorial appetites. The shelling of the Odesa port immediately after the agreements on the unblocking of Ukrainian exports, the mood in Russia itself and the probable struggle for power that has already begun in the Kremlin do not give grounds to say that Moscow is ready to give in on something. According to Friedman, the next few weeks are a critical moment in the course of this conflict, as each stage sets the stage for the next. If the offensive does not take place, "the harsh winter weather will be accompanied by difficult choices about the future conduct of the war."

Despite heavy losses and failure to achieve their goals, "President Vladimir Putin and his Kremlin show no signs of readiness for a serious conversation." "From the beginning, Russian officials formulated their military goals for Ukraine: denazification (of a government led by a Jewish president), demilitarization, neutrality, recognition of the occupied Crimea as Russian territory and recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent so-called "people's republics," says Stephen Pifer and adds , that the Kremlin's goals have not changed since then. The Kremlin practically wants Ukraine to surrender. "Even a ceasefire poses a danger for the Ukrainian side. This will lead to Russian troops occupying large parts of eastern and southern Ukraine without any guarantees that they will leave," says Peifer and reminds that this was already the case in 2014-15, when the Russians not only did not leave Ukrainian territories for Donbas, but continued to shell them. Now, it is quite likely that the Russian military can use the ceasefire to regroup and rearm for a new attack on Ukraine. Given the fact that the majority of Ukrainians do not support the surrender of territories, including those who live in the east (77%) and south (82%), wherever the offensive takes place, the question of readiness for negotiations should be left to the discretion of the leadership of Ukraine, believes Peifer . "If the leaders of Ukraine decide to start negotiations, the West should not prevent them, but the West also should not pressure them to start negotiations until they see a net benefit from it. Western officials should be careful to open any channel to Moscow, which the Russians will try to turn into negotiations through the heads of Ukrainians," says the former American ambassador to Ukraine. In his opinion, there is a clear aggressor and victim in this war. And even if the West is afraid of Russia's confrontation with NATO, this is not only an unlikely prospect, Pifer believes, but in his opinion, demanding concessions from Kyiv would be simply dangerous. According to Peifer, such concessions to the aggressor could "reduce the size and economic viability of the Ukrainian state, which would cause a sharp internal reaction in the country." So can weakening Ukraine reduce the Russian threat? - asks the expert. And how will Vladimir Putin, who wants the "return of Russia's historical lands" outside of Ukraine, react to such concessions?