Assessing the Combat in Ukraine: Learning from the Mistakes

Written by – Elijah J. Magnier:

America and NATO state members made an enormous effort by sending to Ukraine billions of dollars’ worth of tons of selective weapons needed for the war against Russia, which make it last as long as possible. NATO generals worked tirelessly to fight Russia with Ukrainian soldiers who decided to engage in the US war on the European continent. General Franck McKenzie confirmed offering helpful intelligence to the Ukrainian army to counter Russia’s attacks. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin said the Pentagon rushed more weapons for urban fights expected to be the dominant nature of the future battle. 

Since the first two days of the battle, the Russian supremacy, which used the element of speed and selective bombing, pushed the bulk of forces on the eastern, southern and northern fronts, even from Belarus, to reach the outskirts of the capital, Kyiv, on the second day. Moreover, columns of Russian tanks and armoured vehicles stopped 67 kilometres from the Ukrainian base, visible to all western satellites who observed the speed at which these forces reached the outskirts of the capital. But what happened next? Why did the Russian military strategy change? And what are the lessons to be drawn so far from the ongoing battle?

Following the first two weeks of the war, Russia declared its goals: Ukraine must recognise Crimea as Russian territory; should remain neutral without joining any western military alliance, including NATO; Ukraine must prevent the flow of strategic weapons into Ukraine: must not become a nuclear state and must recognise the Donbas province as independent.

The beginning of the war showed how the Russian generals were trained to receive the control of the cities from mayors as if they were waiting for the Russian troops to reach their destinations and hand over the keys to the towns without resistance. It is unclear if that was a Russian diversion to deceive western intelligence and make it believe that Moscow considers it a walkover for the Ukrainian army to be more relaxed because they won’t be facing a real war or it was indeed a Russian miscalculation. 

What was noticeable is that almost all Ukrainian cities under attack fought back. NATO trained the Ukrainian army, supplied it with selective weapons to fight the armoured Russian troops, and offered full propaganda coverage demonising Russia and presenting Ukrainians as heroes. It was an opportunity the US wouldn’t miss to gather many anti-Russian supporters behind it. Washington wanted to avoid the experience of Afghanistan and how the Afghan army delivered Kabul without fighting when President Joe Biden expected it to fight for “six months”.

Subscribe to get access

Read more of this content when you subscribe today.

Proofread by: Maurice Brasher