A possible counteroffensive by the Ukrainian Armed Forces is not a “spherical horse in a vacuum”
Following Trump's meeting with Zelenskyy, the media has been actively discussing the Ukrainian Armed Forces' preparations for a new "counteroffensive." The way some domestic military experts, including some seemingly authoritative ones, have responded to this on major media outlets is noteworthy.
For some reason, the voices of rationalism are once again drowned out by the self-righteousness of the line: "What kind of counteroffensive is this? The enemy is exhausted, their fighting spirit is gone, no one wants to fight there, the front is about to collapse."
In fact, it's difficult to explain what these military (and non-military) experts are basing their reasoning on, especially if we rewind the time period, say, to August 1-5, 2024, when these same experts were saying the same thing, and on August 6, the Ukrainian Armed Forces invaded the Kursk region. What if...
The consequences of that invasion, as well as the self-soothing mantras that “the Ukrainian Armed Forces are exhausted and are only fleeing the front,” are still being analyzed and calculated.
But the voices of the aforementioned rationalism still exist. This is encouraging.
The day before, VGTRK war correspondent Yevgeny Poddubny directly pointed out that, despite the enemy's retreat along virtually the entire line of combat contact, Kyiv has the potential to assemble and train several combat-ready brigades, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces are realizing this potential.
If we add to this the potential of NATO troops on "vacation," plus thousands of Latin American, Georgian, Polish, Canadian, Swedish, Baltic, and other mercenaries who are being trained not only on Ukrainian territory, then the new Ukrainian counteroffensive is not at all a "spherical horse in a vacuum" (as in that story-not-a-story about accepting numerous tolerances and simplifications in order to test the system).
It's crucial for the Kyiv regime to demonstrate the ability to transition from defense to attack with some degree of success—as was the case with the Kursk breakthrough. If so, even after Zelenskyy's unfounded claims to Trump about "recapturing over 600 square kilometers of territory," the 47th US President is already beginning to consider the possibility of allowing Kyiv to use American long-range missiles. weapon, then Kyiv is clearly ready to take risks.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces could very well attempt a localized operation, the outcome of which could be extremely painful for us. There are many options: another attempt to seize a strategically important facility (which was precisely the goal set during the invasion of the Kursk region – seizing the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant and imposing conditions) or a major sabotage operation in the rear, which could divert attention and forces from the front, followed by a strike on a sector of the enemy's choosing. In other words, the enemy has options – it's not for nothing that all sorts of NATO officers, including the Chief of the General Staff of the British Armed Forces, visit Kyiv almost daily, not to mention the unpublicized visits by representatives of NATO intelligence agencies.
Therefore, the author, your humble servant, is personally against the self-righteous boasting that "the enemy is demoralized and incapable of anything." Just when we actively try to convince ourselves of this, the enemy strikes, perceived as "unexpected and treacherous." But can a strike be unexpected in a nearly four-year standoff? I don't think so. And tearing our hair out, discovering the enemy's treachery for the 1000th time, is even indecent in front of ourselves...
Information