Summer’s over! Sorry about that. But the WTH fam is back this week with a question: Why does the Biden administration want to undermine Ukraine’s long-awaited counteroffensive? We’ve got Gen. Jack Keane back to explain. Three highlights:
Critics at the Pentagon have never fought a war like the Ukrainians are fighting.
The subtext is always Biden’s unfounded fear of Russian escalation.
The Ukrainians are making incredible progress.
In mid-August, in the depth of the summer doldrums, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the UK Financial Times published eerily similar pieces citing senior Biden administration officials, dumping all over the ongoing Ukrainian “spring” counteroffensive. In a Wall Street Journal riposte, General Jack Keane labeled negative comments about Ukraine “chirping.”
Some questions here about the chirping:
If the Ukrainians were losing, why air that out in public?
Isn’t this a narrative to encourage Putin?
But sorry, no answers. Honestly, absent conspiracy theorizing, this coordinated effort is inexplicable. Yes, it’s true that certain White House officials are encouraging “track 1.5” talks between former US government officials and the Russians. But are they really trying to sell out Kyiv and forge a negotiated deal with Putin? And does Biden’s crack natsec team really think Zelenskyy would sign up for that?
More important still, as our guest Gen. Jack Keane points out, the Ukrainians aren’t losing. Indeed, despite the intentional slow-rolling of critical equipment by Washington, Ukrainian forces have broken through in critical areas, and their strategy is paying off against the lumbering Russians. Don’t listen to us; check out the Institute for the Study of War’s map (Sep.6) for just one critical theater of battle. Facts matter.
HIGHLIGHTS
What’s your assessment of the counteroffensive?
JK: first of all, we're up against a Russian defense in depth. And by that I mean comprehensive defensive positions that have significant obstacles that consist of minefields, tank trenches … followed by what they're referred to as Dragon teeth, which are cement pyramids, anywhere from 3, 4, 5 feet high, laid out in multiple rows, trenches behind those, and all of that covered by direct fire from assault weapons, machine guns, and then also artillery, massive artillery as a matter of fact. And then they have the capability to bring up attack helicopters, the Ka-52. Relatively sophisticated attack helicopter that can fire out to five miles an anti-tank missile, which is they're shooting from firing lines beyond the range of the shoulder-fired air defense weapons that we have given the Ukrainians. And the Ukrainians have virtually no air support. So that is what they're up against.
What do you think of what you called the “chirping” from the sidelines in the US?
JK: No one in the United States military today wearing a uniform has ever faced what I just described other than going to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California if they happen to be in a heavy unit, heavy brigade, that means an armor-mechanized organization, and practiced it there. But practice against a Russian defensive position in California is dramatically different than what I just described to you.
Despite the formidable defense that the Ukrainians have, they've been working against it now for two months. They've learned a lot in terms of what to do and what not to do. And they've used their foot infantry at night to get into the Russian trenches and use tactical surprise to do that, and then also to remove a lot of the mines by hand, if you can believe that, under the cover of darkness and how treacherous that is. The Ukrainians are handicapped somewhat because I've been told they only got some 60 something Leopard tanks of the 250 promised, and they've got less than 25% of the engineer breaching equipment, which helps them get through the minefields and the other obstacles.
All that said, the Ukrainians have begun and have broken through the main defensive line of the Russians after two months. They've done that in the vicinity, which is obviously in the media now. Robotyne is the town they're doing that, and they're attacking on that axis and they're attacking on two other axes to the east of that.
So why the chirping? And who?
JK: The chirping has come certainly never acknowledging that the Ukrainians are having to attack without air support, without mobile air defense, and handcuffed by not having all the equipment that was promised them. That's never mentioned. But they're questioning their tactics. And the tactics they're questioning is why are the Ukrainians attacking on three axes when they should take their limited amount of forces that they have, after all the Russians outgun them and outman them, therefore concentrate your limited number of forces on one axis.
And that is what they have been chirping from the sidelines about in The New York Times, the Financial Times, and The Washington Post. And I've looked at who the reporters are and they are reputable reporters. So that tells me that their sources, anonymous, of course, that are providing this information are credible, likely in terms of their rank and their years of experience. So they're obviously taking that criticism at face value.
Do the chirpers have a point?
JK: None of that criticism makes any sense. The Ukrainians had rightfully looked at this situation and said, "What we need to do is figure out how to penetrate the Russian main defensive lines." And they've done that in a manner I've just described to you using infantry at night, tactical surprise, et cetera. But then they don't want the Russians to be able to use their mobile reserves to block that penetration. So what they have concluded is that we should attack on multiple axes and pin down as much of the mobile reserves that are beyond the defensive positions as we possibly can.
So one of the places they're attacking is Bakhmut, which received significant amount of publicity. And particularly with the Wagner Group pouring itself in there, casualties were extraordinarily high. And it's the only offensive victory the Russians had in 2023. And it's a symbolic victory for them. It has no military value, but Ukrainians know this. So what they have done is attack Bakmut, not so much to capture it. If the Russians left, they would take it. That's not their interest. Their interest is to pin down as much forces that could be used as mobile reserves as possible, and they are achieving that. There's multiple divisions there now, airborne divisions, mechanized divisions that are at Bakhmut making certain that they don't lose that symbolic town that they captured that has no military significance to it, but a lot of propaganda significance because how they oversold their victory at Bakhmut.
And then they're attacking a little further to the east of Robotyne as well in a place called Veluka Novosilka, and they made a penetration there in the last couple of days as well. But what this does is pin down the mobile reserves and not give the Russians the capacity to respond to one particular penetration and block it. And if you block the penetration, the offensive is over. That's the reality of it.
So there’s no value in the critique?
JK: So the chirping, I think, I mean, I find that it's appalling, and the arrogance that surrounds it is very frustrating because here we've handcuffed the Ukrainians, haven't given them all they need, and now we're sitting on the sidelines not having the experience that the Ukrainians have had and criticize them. Think of this, the Ukrainians have been fighting the Russians for 18 months. This is conventional warfare. There's nobody in the United States military that has the experience that the Ukrainian generals have and that their tactical commanders have given the 18 months of warfare they've been executing.
Why is Team Biden undermining the Ukrainians?
JK: Well, I don't know if the security apparatus that serves the White House is involved in this. I do know that Pentagon has been involved in it for sure, and it may have extended to military leaders who are operationally deployed in the region. In other words, in NATO. I just don't know. I don't have that information nor did I choose to chase it down.
But I mean, let's face it, the Biden administration has calculated very carefully what to provide to the Ukrainians and when to provide it. And the fact that the Ukrainians do not have air power is a calculated decision on the part of the Biden administration. The fact that they don't have long-range artillery in the virtue of ATMSs, that's the Army Tactical Missile System acronym, ATMS that can go out to 200 miles. The fact that they don't have mobile defense systems that can move with the attacking forces on the offense and be able to deal with those attack helicopters I mentioned. Those are all calculated decisions that the Biden administration made.
And think of this, they don't get M1 tanks until the fall of the year, 31 only. We have hundreds of M1 tanks available. The Marines have turned theirs in because they're not using them anymore. There's M1 tanks that we think are too old, but we haven't thrown them away. They're in a storage depot in the United States. And interestingly enough, we have M1 tanks, breaching equipment with brigade sets of equipment in Germany prepared to go that are maintained by contractors, and they're there in the event the United States goes to war with who? Russia.
So no rational explanation?
JK: I don't know any agenda that the White House has got here in dealing with them other than the fact that the elephant in the room from day one has been not to unduly provoke the Russians. I mean, when President Biden responding to Putin putting 20,000 soldiers on the border of Ukraine, 60 days into the Biden administration in March of '21. President Biden was asked, what do you intend to do about that? He said, I'm not planning to do anything because I don't want to provoke Putin.” I think that has been a mantra of the administration right from the outset, the World War III scenario. The war would get expanded if we provide too much equipment too soon. Or, Putin would use a nuclear weapon. So, there's been 18 months of incremental escalation of one, more advanced system over the other with no escalatory response by Russia. I think the evidence is pretty clear, that's an acceptable risk to finally give the Ukrainians everything they need as soon as possible.
Do you think there’s an appetite in Kyiv for a negotiated peace?
JK: There could be at some point, but not now. I spent most of last night, frankly involved with things dealing with Ukraine and meetings they were having, et cetera. And I can tell you they are so determined to make certain that this counteroffensive is as successful as it possibly can be. They are absolutely committed to liberating their people from Russia's control and occupation and certainly the territory that goes with it. They are focused on liberating their people and that includes Crimea. Their determination to do that is really quite admirable and it is regrettable that this administration has not had an Oval Office speech on this war, laid out what our strategic objectives are in support of it, and it should have been a corollary to what President Zelensky is attempting to achieve here, and that is liberate his people in its land from Russian control and domination.
And then periodically, give the American people an update on it and how different things would be if we had that kind of national leadership that is committed to stopping this aggression and takeover of a democratic country inside of Europe, find that not going to let that affront stand and our willingness to commit to support them and do it without ever having to shed any American blood in the process and think of what they've already achieved. They have 83% of their territory back and we've destroyed half of Russia's combat power and we've not shed any blood ourselves.T
From the very beginning, I believe the administration's position, somewhat unstated, but I've seen it in a couple of meetings that I've attended, it was clear that they were heading towards some kind of negotiated deal to stop the war as soon as possible. That was not the page the Ukrainians were on. From the outset, the Ukrainians thought they'd be able to handle the Russians. It is United States, our intelligence services, our military as well, me and other people like me, not retired guys like me matter, but we all had the same impression that Russia would dominate and eventually the Ukrainians, they would never surrender
How do you see the demand for more training for F-16 pilots?
JK: [W]hen people are telling me, oh, well, to really produce an F16 Ukrainian fighter pilot that's going to take over a year or something. Teaching them how to fly, it's one thing, but teaching them how to be a good combat pilot is another. I'm saying, my God, they're already combat pilots. So they passed that threshold, give them the new technology. And yes, it's challenging to deal with a generation four high-tech vehicle, but these guys will master that and exceed everybody's expectation in doing it. So yeah, having been close to this a little bit, obviously I have my biases here for them, but I am so done underestimating them in terms of what they're facing and their perseverance and determination is really quite remarkable.
Why are some elements in the GOP so hostile to Ukraine?
JK: I try to stay out of the politics, but I won't run from the issue. I mean, I'm astounded by it to be quite frank, because this is a political party that has been very supportive of having a strong defense and recognizing and also supporting strong American leadership in the world. I think everyone has taken solace by the fact that America's post-World War II global leadership and its strong military has helped to achieve a degree of stability in the world and avoiding the catastrophe of World War II. And as a result of that, the global economy has grown, countries have benefited from it, and certainly the United States in terms of our prosperity and our quality of life has benefited from those two factors, American's leadership and accepting a responsible role in the world to help provide stability and also the economic benefit that is accrued to the world writ large as a result of it and what it's done for the United States and our people. They're all connected.
And I'm astounded that we would walk away from something like that and say, "Well, we don't really need to play that serious and large a role in the world out there." It's so naive. It's stunning because we have never had a challenge that we're facing today since World War II, where we have the aggression of Russia already committed to a war in Europe and we have China threatening another one. And that's what we were facing in World War II, war in the Pacific and war in Europe. But today with much more sophisticated weapons and with China who has advanced technology that we don't have and is spending money on a pro rata basis that exceeds anything we're doing is the most rapidly growing military in the world and we have a leader that's threatening the use of it.
It's stunning to me that we don't connect the dots and how these authoritarian regimes perceive that there's advantage here to be had with the United States and like-minded democracy. So you have China, Russia, Iran, all seeking to take advantage in their respective theaters. Middle East, Iran dominate and control, Russia rebuild the Russian Empire in Putin's image, China dominate and control their region and China having the strategic objective, being an emerging superpower as we've seen in history, designed to replace the United States as the world's global leader, usually most of the time that leads to war.
So our principal objective would be to prevent the calamity that could be on the horizon as a result of major war in multiple theaters facing the United States once again, at least in two theaters, for sure. That should be our major objective and taking care of the border at home only and solving other domestic issues that we have in the United States only, and walking away from our responsibilities to deal with the world as it is today, actually invites danger to the United States and threatens the security of the American people.
And this is from a political party that espoused that as one of its foundations and it seems to me that they're walking away from Ronald Reagan as well, who believed that if you want to prevent a war, you better be prepared to fight one. And that is not just about the will that you're expressing, that's about real military capability deployed so your adversary will see it and practiced and do it in conjunction with allies and partners, so there's a clear message that we intend to be there if you choose to push this aggression. And that means you're forward deployed and you're engaged with allies and partners in the theater, not just protecting your border at home.
So you’re as flummoxed as we are…?
JK: My God, I mean the United States of America, if we had the right administration, can't control our border and also help to establish peace and stability in the world with forward presence, the United States military and our values and an economy that's out there doing what we should do in terms of training with the world writ large. We can't do all of that? I think we can. And I think it's somewhat shameful that people are walking away from that. It just posits more danger and more risk for the American people and invites more aggression. When Putin look at that, when they hear it, when Xi looks at it and hears it, doesn't that provide him more incentive if there's a lack of political will growing in the United States to move up his agenda to deal with Taiwan? I think it's got to be in his calculus someplace.
Full transcript here.
SHOWNOTES
Keane on Fox: Ukraine has made first breakthrough of Russia’s main defense (Fox News, August 25 2023)
Ukraine Needs Weapons, Not U.S. Kibitzing (Seth Cropsey, Wall Street Journal, August 29 2023)
U.S. intelligence says Ukraine will fail to meet offensive’s key goal (Joh Hudson and Alex Horton, Washington Post, August 17 2023)
Leaked German intelligence report slams Ukraine’s counter-offensive as ‘too slow’ due to ‘leadership deficiencies’(Daily Mail, July 26 2023)
US doubt Ukraine counteroffensive will yield big gains, leaked document says (Washington Post, April 10 2023)
Kyiv hits back
- Ukraine Foreign Minister Kuleba said: “We don’t need to prove anything; our success will reward optimists while ruining the reputation of doubters.”
How the Ukraine Counteroffensive Can Still Succeed (Fred Kagan, Time, August 3 2023)
Ukraine Needs American Drones (Seth Cropsey, Wall Street Journal, August 6 2023)
China Ponders Russia’s Logistical Challenges in the Ukraine War (RAND, August 28 2023)