Click to see the full-size image
Written by Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant
American experts and officials are desperately trying to “explain” the Ukrainian defeat. In a recent publication, former US security adviser John Bolton claimed that the Kiev counterattack failed due to President Joe Biden’s inability to ensure adequate military assistance to the Ukrainian regime. Indeed, this type of opinion does not seem to reveal a really technical analysis, but a personal position on the part of Bolton in the current American political scenario.
Bolton wrote his analysis in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal called “Blame Biden’s Hesitancy for Stalling Ukraine’s Offensive”. He lamented the fact that Kiev is not succeeding in its long-awaited counterattack. According to him, Ukraine “isn’t making the headway some proponents had forecast”. Bolton also said that Ukrainian “inability to achieve major advances is the natural result of a US strategy aimed only at staving off Russian conquest” – instead of “vigorously working toward Ukrainian victory.”
Despite focusing his criticism on the current US government, Bolton also made it clear that the entire NATO shares this responsibility. The former adviser believes that Russian nuclear deterrence power has generated a kind of “paralysis” in the West, with countries becoming unable to increase military aid to Ukraine “appropriately”. For Bolton, this “fear” of Russia would be motivating the West to avoid increasing military aid, with the alliance no longer having a true commitment to Ukrainian “territorial integrity”.
“Ukraine’s offensive failures and Russia’s defensive successes share a common cause: the slow, faltering, nonstrategic supply of military assistance by the West. The serial debates over whether to supply this or that weapons system, the perpetual fear that Russia will escalate to war against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and occasional Kremlin nuclear saber-rattling have instilled a paralyzing caution in Western capitals. Although the UK under Boris Johnson wasn’t deterred, NATO has seemed unwilling to fulfill its commitment to restore Ukraine’s full sovereignty and territorial integrity”, he said.
As a “solution” to this problem, Bolton proposes a risky alternative: to ignore Russia and exponentially increase American military support to Ukraine. He said there is “no evidence” that Moscow has enough power to “threaten” NATO, which is why he does not think it is necessary to be “afraid” of the Russians. In the same sense, Bolton criticized the possibility of resuming the peace talks, rejecting any chance of a diplomatic resolution which would only benefit the Russian side. For the former advisor, the solution to the conflict will only be possible through the West’s quest for Ukrainian military victory.
In addition, Bolton also advocates a revision of the sanctions policy – not in the sense of reducing them, but of escalating them further. He claims that it is necessary to include China in all sanctions imposed on Russia, as Beijing and Moscow are strategic partners – despite the fact that China is not helping Russia militarily in the special military operation.
These opinions are not surprising, considering Bolton’s past. Seen as a “hawk” figure in American politics, he is known for advocating an aggressive and bellicose strategy, openly in favor of Washington financing regime change operations in enemy countries such as Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. With regard to the Ukrainian conflict, his radical thoughts continue to echo, as was possible to see with his recent praise for the sending of American cluster munitions to Kiev – what he called “an excellent idea”.
However, it is curious to think that a professional security expert actually believes in the possibility of a “Ukrainian victory”. Also, it is similarly unlikely that Bolton actually believes that the counteroffensive failed merely because of a lack of military assistance. These opinions do not seem to reflect his personal expertise as someone familiar with security and defense issues.
It is evident that Kiev would not have any success in its counteroffensive anyway, as its Armed Forces are weakened and with little capacity to replace casualties – which makes any counterattack impossible, regardless of the help received. Furthermore, a Ukrainian victory is virtually impossible for military analysts, with the regime’s defeat being a mere matter of time. As someone close to the state, Bolton certainly has data which confirm this.
So, most likely Bolton is using the counteroffensive issue as simple political propaganda for personal purposes. Being a Republican, he has disagreements with the current administration and supports radical changes in the country. His warmongering stance reflects the interests of a more radical wing of American politics and shows how the proxy war against Russia tends to continue escalating, regardless of whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats in the government.
You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.
the old russophobic eagle. a ridiculous person, trying to stay relevant.
“the uk under boris johnson wasn’t deterred” – guy with no power praising the bravery of another guy who surrendered his power johnson and bolton have in common that they aren’t in power, this means they get to propose any strategy even if it is an insane fantasy, and claim they would have won.
blessed are the peace makers, not the war starters. the war profiteers in the west who created this war serve the eugenics cult. they should be forced to eat insects in jaill for their actions.
nem isso merecem. pobres insectos.
john bolton is one of the most evil men in existence. a neo-con of the worst kind, responsible for the war in iraq and easily one of the biggest mistakes trump made was hiring this war criminal as national security advisor. and one of the smartest things he did was firing him. like a cockroach bolton always seems re re-surface whenever there is a war to be pushed.
those mustache brainless neocon thinks that russia cannot treat nato, while saddam could do it with wmds, that irak did not have anymore in 2003, while russia has and could level those lbqt idiots in the whole ‘political west’.
too bad that he did not followed to hell rummie and colin.
the failure of the ukraine offensive lies squarely on the shoulders of russia..regardless of bolton’s blame game.
he just give a true surrounding damage even with only a toy gun.