A ‘deep and beautiful breakthrough’ in Ukraine’s counteroffensive is unlikely, Gen Valery Zaluzhny said
By Andrew Buncombe IN SEATTLE
2 November 2023
Ukraine’s top general has warned there will be no quick “breakthrough” in the counteroffensive against Russia,comments that will create consternation for Joe Biden as he battles to ensure the US maintains its funding for Kyiv.
In a stark assessment delivered 18-months after Vladimir Putin launched his invasion, Ukraine Gen Valery Zaluzhny said both sides had reached an effective stalemate.
Five months after Ukraine forces, with the backing of Nato arms and know-how, sought to drive back Russian forces, his troops have managed just 10 miles.
“Just like in the First World War we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate,” the general told The Economist.
He said it would require a massive technological leap to break the deadlock. “There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough.”
To those who closely follow the conflict, not least the people of Ukraine, where last week protesters gathered to call for shorter deployments for soldiers, the statement will not come as a surprise.
Yet to those who had thought the long-touted counteroffensive could quickly repel Russian forces and force them from Ukrainian territory, it may well do.
After the head of the Wagner Group mercenaries, Yevgeny Prigozhin, appeared to call for an end to the conflict this summer and turned his fighters towards Moscow, it appeared Putin’s plans had turned to chaos.
When Prigozhin subsequently died in a plane crash in August, allegedly at the orders of Putin, it was perhaps a sign the Russian leader was trying to take a new grip on what was happening.
Ukraine’s army should have been able to push back at a pace of 18 miles a day as it breached Russian defensive lines, the general said.
“If you look at Nato’s text books and at the maths which we did [in planning the counter-offensive], four months should have been enough time for us to have reached Crimea, to have fought in Crimea, to return from Crimea and to have gone back in and out again,” Gen Zaluzhny told the magazine.
When his troops got nowhere, he wondered if it was his commanders, so he changed them. They still had no luck.
He said he only got an insight when he reread a book published in 1941 by a Soviet major-general, who analysed the battles of the First World War. It was called “Breaching Fortified Defence Lines”.
He said: “And before I got even halfway through it, I realised that is exactly where we are because just like then, the level of our technological development today has put both us and our enemies in a stupor.”
It is estimated that while up to 70,000 Ukrainians have been killed and 100-120,000 injured, Russia’s casualties stand at an estimated 120,000 deaths.
For all those deaths, Russia currently controls 20 per cent of Ukraine territory.
Gen Zaluzhny initially believed he could halt Russia “by bleeding its troops”. He added: “That was my mistake. Russia has lost at least 150,000 dead. In any other country such casualties would have stopped the war.”
The 49-year-old, known to friends as “Our Valera”, told The Economist: “Let’s be honest, it’s a feudal state where the cheapest resource is human life. And for us…the most expensive thing we have is our people.”
The comments from the general, appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian military in July 2021, will not be much celebrated in the White House.
Following Russia’s invasion, Mr Biden earned plaudits for standing firm with Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky, cementing the support of Nato’s other members, and encouraging nations outside the alliance to offer support and funding to its war effort.
Mr Zelensky has repeatedly resisted any calls to hand over Ukraine territory and insisted his country is involved in an existential fight.
Increasingly Mr Biden, who has spearheaded as much as $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, has pitched himself as a defender of democracy, even as the likes of Donald Trump, has said the US should stop funding the war.
Mr Trump’s calls have been taken up by many in the Republican Party, not least new Speaker Mike Johnson, who have said the money should instead be spent on the US’s border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration.
In the aftermath of Hamas’s attacks on Israel, some said the money being spent in Ukraine could instead go to Israel.
Indeed, while Mr Biden has sought to tie funding for both nations, Mr Johnson has put forward a bill that would split the two, and pin money for Ukraine with spending cuts. So far, that bill has made little progress.
Earlier this week, Mr Biden’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, pleaded with legislators to keep the funding bill linked.
“The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have clear links,” he told Senators on Capitol Hill.
“Since we cut off Russia’s traditional means of supplying its military, it’s turned more and more to Iran for assistance. In return, Moscow has supplied Iran with increasingly advanced military technology, which poses a threat to Israel’s security.”
Gen Zaluzhny said it would take something extraordinary to lever a breakthrough.
“The simple fact is that we see everything the enemy is doing and they see everything we are doing,” he told the magazine.
“In order for us to break this deadlock we need something new, like the gunpowder which the Chinese invented and which we are still using to kill each other.”
What in God’s name motivated him to make this information public? How does it help Ukraine?
It may be time for the commander-in-chief to say: “Thank you for your wonderful service, but now it’s time to take a break.”
A pretty decent pick for his replacement might be the excellent General Dmytro Marchenko. He’s a winner.
After some thought about this, I came to the conclusion that this is a ruse by Gen. Zaluzhny.
I agree! Zal is not stupid enough to say things without thinking about them first. He’s a whole lot smarter than the so-called experts in NATO.
I also thought it sounds like a ruse. The more it goes through the Kremlin spin cycle, the more ruse-like it becomes. If one looks at the big picture, what Zaluzhny says is the stone cold truth. Neither side has made substantial progress over the past year. Ukraine can make such progress once again following a quantum leap in fighting capability, that which Zaluzhny calls in vague terms “technology”. I conclude that it’s not a ruse so much as a warning to the west that criminal invasion a set to pay off unless the west steps up to meet the challenge.
By ruse, I mean that his statements are meant to provoke the cockroaches to continue their meat attacks.
Here is the first part of the conversation which the Telegraph omitted for some reason.
“The Western allies were overly cautious in supplying Ukraine with the latest technologies and more powerful weapons, but by holding back the supply of long-range missile systems and tanks, they allowed the Russian Federation to regroup and strengthen its defenses after the Ukrainian breakthrough in Kharkiv region in the north and in Kherson region in the south in at the end of 2022, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valeriy Zaluzhny said.”
Interesting. That is not present in the version I read and is not there now.
Where did you find it F1?
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/944985.html
I think that is from a different interview; not the DT.
In fact it concludes in an even more downbeat way than the DT piece. It’s the putler scenario: keep going until there is no one left to fight. Absolutely horrendous and a gift for the putinaZi agents in the GOP.
Again, how does he see providing that sort of info to be helping Ukraine?
Both the DT article and the Interfax-Ukraine article refer to an interview with The Economist. It seems like they’re extracting different bits of the same interview.
The original article was from the Economist. I can’t access it, it is behind a paywall.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/01/ukraines-commander-in-chief-on-the-breakthrough-he-needs-to-beat-russia
It seems that different journos scanned it, extracted what they wanted and put their own spin on it.
It was a bad decision of Zal to be as open as that.
Foccusser, this is a key statement and exactly what we’ve been saying all along. The West’s cowardice and lethargic agreement to send weapons and ammo, its slow and insufficient deliveries of such, including its refusal to send the most vital weapons and not giving Ukraine permission to attack mafia land proper with Western weapons, together formed the foundation of this unfortunate situation and massive, unnecessary increase of deaths.
This doesn’t look good for The Telegraph by having omitted this very, very important statement.
Here is a guy explaining this article very well. He’s one of the good Republicans and very smart too.
Thanks for sharing, foccusser. It was quite interesting. The comments below it, too.
One point that Prof. Gerdes said in this video about the liberation of Kherson brought back bitter memories. That’s when I said back then that it’s great that we got Kherson back, but it sucks that we let the cockroaches escape.
Kherson and Kharkiv both had the same scenario. The West holding up supplies of weapons because the fear Ukraine might win.
What is the augmentation of cowardice? The West today has never been such a pussified entity before in its entire existence. As our inglorious leaders pat themselves on the shoulders for not getting involved in the war, they really are in the process of happily sawing off the branch that they’re squatting on.
“West today has never been such a pussified entity before in its entire existence.”
“not getting involved in the war”
It took the US 2 1/2 years to get involved in WW I (not until after Germany’s “Zimmermann Telegram” hit the US press).
It took the US 2 years to get involved in WW II (not until after Japan bombed of Pearl Harbor).
And, it’ll take forever for us to get involved this time.
No one asks for US boots on the ground. Just handing over what’s needed would suffice. The Ukrainians will do the rest.
The above DT article references Zaluzhny’s interview with The Economist. The Ukrainska Pravda summary of that interview (link below) says that Zaluzhnyi “named five priorities that Ukraine needs to survive in the war with Russia: air superiority, electronic warfare, counter-battery fire, mine clearance technologies and building up mobilisation reserves.”
Maybe the motivation for the interview was to encourage allies to provide the support that Ukraine needs to expel the nazi rat bastards from all Ukrainian territory.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/2/7426819/
(The original interview in The Economist is linked from the above, but it requires registration.)
“Gen Zaluzhny initially believed he could halt Russia “by bleeding its troops”. He added: “That was my mistake. Russia has lost at least 150,000 dead. In any other country such casualties would have stopped the war.””
This statement from Zaluzhny is still a bit lunar. After Meloni’s gaffe, it’s starting to send out a lot of bad signals. What is the strategy? World is at war! Courageous Ukrainians are on the battlefield defending freedom. They deserve better than the mistakes of politicians or military leaders.
If we can rightly blame the alliance around Ukraine for weapons delivery problems, it would be fair for some Ukrainian military personnel to reconsider. Relying on the meat grinder to achieve military goals is not part of any war strategy worthy of the name.
Are we lacking pragmatism, essential to achieving a military goal?
Zaluzhny’s speech, on the eve of renewed aid to the Senate and House, bordered on attempted suicide.
My God! help Ukraine which needs it so much!
Would you want to be dependent on Joe Biden and the US government to support you in a war against meat waves? I sure wouldn’t. I can only imagine General Zaluzhny’s frustration.
to follow up a little on the point of Larry M
in times of war we don’t know what to think of such public discourse…
confession/reflection/diversion?
on its bet to bet on an attrition of Russian soldiers, it was perhaps only half achieved, to the extent that the soldiers come from poor regions, for whom commitment is a social climb. if the Ukrainians had completely shaken the Russian coconut tree, requiring a general mobilization – with both the need to train the Westernized White Russians, with the multiplied problem of equipping their troops perhaps it would have been more effective for a rebellion / internal collapse – that the continued mobilization of “second rate” individuals of cheap cannon fodder that no one cries.
for many and for planning the summer had to lead to reaching the Sea of Azov. it won’t be. in this sense it is a failure… definitely not.
what would be a failure is to no longer be able to resume the offensive in better conditions, to burn its equipment and its men and I believe that everything has been relatively preserved. It seems to me that if one window of opportunity closes with the weather, there remain others… and other fronts.
he says that the Russians have made progress on the one hand, and he gives ideas for regaining the advantage, notably mine clearance. Faced with the ability to mine by aerial delivery of mines and to be able to easily remine behind them, there are things to invent so that men continue to believe in their chance of getting out and winning.
certainly he has a speech of truth to maintain the confidence and attachment of his men and also to boost Western aid.
Some points about his “mistake” … which has
cost countless lives and squandered time
1. Outside observers have been asking this kind of question for probably half a year now especially with regard to Bahkmut. Maybe he thought it was like Imphal or Kohima, fighting over a tennis court?
2. Whatever made him think a lot of deaths would have any impact? What in Russian or Soviet history suggests that?
3. He had to find the answer in an obscure book from decades ago, instead of observed reality?
He has a high popularity rating with the public, even more so than Zelensky, and many believe there is a political rivalry.
So it’s politically difficult for Zelensky to replace him. Yet must be done.
Yes arms delivery has been too slow, but that’s not the whole story.
@Observer
for your point 2: Afgansitan I imagine. but he forgot the enormous Russian zombification machine in the service of the war (which I hope to see threatened).
for his resignation I heard from two types of high level soldiers who have my intellectual respect: some understood his approach, and others were shocked and thought resignation was a logical outcome.
in absolute terms, unless he lost his aura, he could have made mistakes, and remained the best man for the final victory…
for political competition, I had rather heard about Aerostovitch, in the story that only Zelensky believed in victory and was tired it seems to me… Danilov had come to his aid and denied a certain number of things.
Zalhujnyi has already said that politics doesn’t interest him… (it’s possible that he’s sincere! it even happens to famous people)
personally for the moment he keeps my trust… there is nothing really unacceptable/unforgivable especially in the conditions he works without being able to easily know if what to count, apart from the lack of everything.
In Afghanistan, the Russians (USSR) were fighting Muslims, while also having a significant Muslim population at home. So perhaps a different dynamic.
As to Zaluzhnyi having or not having political ambitions (who knows for sure?) what the public believes is also a factor, and he is still more popular than Zelensky, if the surveys have any meaning …
I think it is broadly similar to the situation Truman faced with McArthur in Korea.
The military issues on the ground were different, yes. But still you had a general who was more popular than his commander in chief, making it a tough political decision to sack him.
Arestovych btw has his own axe to grind.