Interpreting Ukraine’s Counteroffensive: Reality Versus Perception

Almost four weeks have passed since Ukraine launched a counteroffensive to regain lost territories. The tactical landscape is ever-changing, and as we trudge deeper into this conflict, opinions on how to interpret these events are proliferating. Today, let’s delve deeper into the reality of the situation and examine three popular narratives: Ukraine’s failure, the start of a potential Ukrainian victory, and a critique of war as a spectator sport.

To begin, let’s look at the terrain Ukraine has regained. To date, Ukraine has claimed to have liberated nine villages, all located between the Dnipro River’s curve and Donetsk City. However, in the grand scheme of things, these villages aren’t strategically significant; they represent fewer than 3000 people’s pre-war homes.

The real question, then, is not about the land regained, but rather about the cost incurred. War isn’t a real estate business; a square kilometer of land holds no value without considering the blood and treasure expended to reclaim it.

Firstly, has Ukraine’s counteroffensive failed? This seems to be the prevailing narrative in the Kremlin, especially since Ukraine started deploying troops. Reports of Ukraine losing several of its Bradley Fighting Vehicles have fueled this narrative.

I argue that while these reports might be factually accurate, we should take them with a grain of salt. The fog of war is thick, and the information we receive is often distorted, sometimes intentionally. The Kremlin’s attempt to disseminate a narrative of Ukrainian failure might well be an effort to weaken Western resolve. Hence, while the destruction of Ukrainian equipment might suggest defeat, I hesitate to draw that conclusion.

A contrasting perspective suggests that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is working. Yes, Ukraine has recovered some land, but the pace of recovery might not match our expectations, considering the quick territorial exchanges witnessed during the Kherson counteroffensive in November 2022.

I argue that while it might be frustrating to watch the slow-paced counteroffensive, we must remember that the offensive against fortified positions is an arduous task. Drawing a parallel with the historical D-Day invasion, the Allies took nearly two months to effect significant territorial changes. Similarly, the war in Ukraine is likely to see ebbs and flows, but the ultimate measure of success lies not in the speed but in the sustained progression.

Lastly, some posit that Ukraine has not yet begun its real counteroffensive. If true, then the current operations are merely probes to test the enemy’s strength and determine where to strike hard. This hypothesis is supported by reports indicating that Ukraine has yet to commit a significant portion of its counteroffensive troops.

If this interpretation holds, then Ukraine’s actions make sense. Rushing headlong into a decisive counterattack would risk significant losses if it were to fail. It’s better to lose a few soldiers in testing the waters than to squander an entire army on a poorly planned attack.

However, the slow pace of the attack risks fostering skepticism in the West, potentially pushing Ukraine into riskier operations. This situation is exacerbated by the digital age, where wars are played out in the public eye in real-time.

This narrative of the war as a spectator sport is disconcerting. War is not a performance; it is a brutal, messy affair where human lives are at stake. Our consumption of this conflict must recognize this reality. Therefore, the West’s task should not be to force Ukraine to speed up the counteroffensive but to offer patience, support, and understanding.

A subplot that’s been simmering on the side is the alleged sidelining of the Russian Minister of Defense, Sergei Shoigu, and Chief of Staff, Valery Gerasimov, due to Wagner mercenaries’ internal disputes. While Shoigu has appeared publicly with Putin, Gerasimov remains out of sight, leading to the trending hashtag #wheresgerasimov. As this situation unfolds, it may provide additional insights into the Ukrainian counteroffensive’s future.

In conclusion, our understanding of Ukraine’s counteroffensive cannot be rooted in the spectacle of war or in the ebb and flow of the frontlines. Instead, it should be grounded in a nuanced understanding of the strategies in play, the costs incurred, and the potential long-term implications. This is a conflict whose repercussions will reverberate far beyond Ukraine’s borders, and we owe it to ourselves to interpret it with the seriousness it deserves.