Mutual frustrations arise in the US-Ukraine alliance

More than two years after their wartime alliance, the bond between the United States and Ukraine is showing signs of wear and tear, giving way to mutual frustration and a sense that the relationship may be in a rut.

These are the issues that often put pressure on relationships: finances, other priorities and complaints about not being heard.

For the Pentagon, the annoyance boils down to one recurring problem: U.S. military strategists, including Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, believe Ukraine should concentrate its forces on one major battle at a time. Instead, President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has vowed to drive Russia out of every inch of Ukraine, is deploying his troops in battles over cities that U.S. officials say have no strategic value.

The most recent example was the battle for the eastern city of Avdiivka, which fell to Russia last month. U.S. officials say Ukraine has defended Avdiivka for too long and at too high a cost.

In turn, Ukraine is becoming increasingly discouraged as US political paralysis has resulted in ammunition shortages for troops on the front lines. As each day passes without new supplies of ammunition and artillery, and Ukrainian crews ration the shells they have, morale suffers.

Mr. Zelensky promised a “renewal” of the Ukrainian military in its stagnant campaign against Russia when he fired his commanding general, Valery Zaluzhny, last month and appointed General Oleksandr Syrsky, the head of his ground forces, to replace him.

Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was on the phone with Gen. Syrsky the next day as officials in the Biden administration tried to figure out whether they had found an ally in the Ukrainian military for what they wanted to do. see as the most likely route to success.

The jury is still out. Some officials say General Syrsky may be more aligned with Mr. Zelensky than his predecessor.

“Zelensky has created a much more unified command structure that is responsive to his leadership and to outside advice,” said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee and recently visited Ukraine.

Two other officials, however, worried whether the new military chief would be willing to push his boss in a direction he did not want to go.

Even now, months after a counter-offensive that failed because Ukraine, in the eyes of the Pentagon, did not follow its advice, Kiev still too often does not want to listen.

White House and Ukrainian officials both say Congress’s inability so far to pass a relief bill that includes $60.1 billion for Ukraine has already undermined the fight on the ground. The measure would send much-needed artillery ammunition and air defense interceptors to the Ukrainian armed forces.

But Ukrainians have other frustrations with the United States. They have often complained that the Biden administration has been slow to approve advanced weapons systems that could cross perceived Russian red lines, from fighter jets to long-range missiles.

“We’ve been tinkering while Rome burns,” Emily Harding, a former US intelligence official, said at the news conference a discussion about Ukraine last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “If we hadn’t had doubts early on,” she added, “if we had actually provided the things we should have done, we would have been much better off now.”

Just a few kilometers from Russian trenches in eastern Ukraine, the roar of incoming Russian artillery shells from howitzers, rockets and mortars was almost non-stop last Friday. The Ukrainian response, characterized by the sharp crack of outgoing fire, became noticeably less frequent.

In the basement of what was once a small farm, the shock wave of explosions above ground clearly changed the air pressure in the cramped, cold room, where a Ukrainian soldier was adjusting drone equipment.

“The reasons the Russians can advance are the lack of ammunition,” said the soldier, who used the call sign DJ in accordance with military protocols. He added that he was frustrated by US inaction, attributing the fall of Avdiivka to the United States’ inability to provide aid.

But a Ukrainian commander, who went by the nickname Chef, was much more forgiving. Without the United States, Ukrainian forces would still be trying to drive the Russians out of Kiev.

Neither the Americans nor the Ukrainians are heading for the exit doors. Their commitment remains solid, because both parties need each other. The U.S. intelligence community continues to provide a significant amount of real-time information to the Ukrainian military on Russian command posts, ammunition depots, and other key nodes in the Russian military lines. The Pentagon continues to host monthly Contact Group meetings to urge Ukrainian partners to provide money, weapons and ammunition.

Perhaps most importantly for the Biden administration, Ukraine is hollowing out the military of one of America’s greatest enemies.

U.S. officials estimate the number of Russian troops killed or wounded since the war began at about 350,000. Russia has also lost vast amounts of equipment; About 2,200 of the 3,500 tanks have been destroyed, along with a third of the armored vehicles, according to a congressional aide who has seen an intelligence assessment.

Even Russia’s victory in Avdiivka came at a significant cost: a pro-war Russian military blogger said in a post that Russia had lost 16,000 men and 300 armored vehicles in its attack. (The blogger Andrei Morozov deleted the post late last month after saying it was a campaign of intimidation against him. He died the next day.)

“Ultimately, make no mistake: Even the generals who may be frustrated with Ukraine look at the Russian casualty reports and equipment losses and smile at the same time,” said Dale Buckner, a former Army colonel. who is the CEO of Global Guardian, a US-based security company.

But Avdiivka was the kind of fight that American war planners would have preferred Ukraine to have handled differently.

A former US commander with close ties to the Ukrainian armed forces said there was no reason to hold the city as long as Ukrainian forces did, except to deprive Russia of more troops and equipment – ​​sacrifices that Moscow was more than willing to accept to claim victory.

Even after it became clear that Russian forces, with larger reinforcements, would gain the upper hand, Ukraine held on, rather than carrying out a strategic withdrawal, US officials said.

As a result, American frustration was high with the Ukrainians, especially among Mr. Zelensky and political leaders, according to a senior Western military official and the former American commander. But the Biden administration has said that Mr. Zelensky, as commander in chief, is making the call.

Ultimately, Ukraine’s chaotic retreat was a mistake, the former US commander said. Western officials say hundreds of Ukrainian troops may have disappeared or been captured by advancing Russian units.

The disagreement over Avdiivka mirrored Washington’s frustrations over last summer’s Ukrainian counteroffensive. In that case, Mr. Austin and other American officials urged Ukraine to concentrate its attack on one main action along the 600-mile front line and press to breach Russian fortifications there.

American officials believed that General Zaluzhny had followed American advice, but that he could not convince his president. So instead of one decisive battle, Kiev split its forces, sending some to the east and some to other fronts, including in the south.

The counter-offensive failed. At the Pentagon, some officials say they don’t view last summer’s efforts as a counteroffensive at all.

“In the military we say that if you try to attack everywhere, you end up being able to attack nowhere – because your forces are spread too thin,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral and former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe. “The Pentagon considers this a mistake and will continue to provide advice to the Ukrainians in this regard.”

“The American side is frustrated because they’re giving military advice and it doesn’t feel like it’s being followed,” said Evelyn Farkas, a former senior Pentagon official on Ukraine and Russia who is now executive director of the McCain Institute. “But Ukrainians don’t like to be micromanaged.”

Additionally, Dr. Farkas: “Our political system is shockingly unreliable right now.”

Pentagon officials are still providing guidance on the military campaign they would like to see in 2024. Three U.S. military officials said in interviews that the United States wanted Ukraine to focus long-range strikes on “endangering Crimea,” a phrase which translates into attacking the Russian “land bridge” that crosses southern Ukraine and connects Russia to the Crimean Peninsula, which President Vladimir V. Putin seized in 2014.

Russian forces use the land bridge for supplies and logistics, and it is crucial to their efforts in southern Ukraine and Crimea.

But again, Ukrainian frustration over the paralysis of the US Congress is playing a role.

Western officials and military experts have warned that without U.S. help, a gradual collapse along the front is a real possibility this year.