The Russian news agency TASS has given prominence to an article by U.K. military expert Robert Clark, of the Civitas think tank and formerly of the neo-con Henry Jackson Society, in the Telegraph today, warning that Kiev and NATO are facing “a devastating defeat” and that the West must be prepared for territorial concessions to Russia in the Ukraine war. The factors that make this unavoidable are: 1. The so-called Ukraine offensive has failed; 2. Winter will make it even worse for the Ukrainians; 3. The U.S. elections are coming.
TASS reports the Telegraph article saying: “If Kiev fails in its battlefield endeavors to split that land bridge, and retake much of its own territory by winter, then vocal calls of territorial concessions for marginal political outcomes will likely become far more prevalent—not just in Ukraine but likely from Western capitals, as so-called ‘war-fatigue’ begins to bite, international stockpiles of equipment and ammunition wither and politicians begin to worry about domestic budgets ahead of national elections,” Clark said, adding that “governments across the West must be prepared for the grim prospect of territorial concessions.”
In his opinion, the “long-planned counter-offensive, now in its second month, has run into several problems—not least that Kiev is still waiting for approximately half of the western military equipment promised earlier in the year.”
“It is incredibly tough going for the Ukrainians,” the expert continued. “This grueling endeavor was always going to take longer than the occasionally impatient international audience was prepared to wait for.”
The analyst added that “the variable that isn’t on their [Ukrainian] side is time.”
“The fighting will begin to grind to a cold halt as the freezing winter saps troops’ ability to conduct high-intensity warfare. This will only give Russia more time to further build up its defenses, as it did last winter,” Clark wrote. “By this point in the West, meanwhile, all eyes will be on the upcoming U.S. election, with more political attention diverted by the U.K.’s general election. Kiev knows it has a shortened window of opportunity to capitalize on its battlefield initiative and take back as much ground as it can.”
However, the real bogeyman in Clark’s piece is China’s Xi Jinping, though we don’t find that out until the end. “Regardless, this would surely be a favored outcome for China’s ruling ‘wolf warrior’ foreign policy elite,” Clark concludes. “Beijing would be utterly delighted if the war were to end with Ukraine divided, Russian troops permanently in the Donbass harassing Kyiv and Europe, and NATO fractured on political lines. Such an outcome would be a gift to China as Xi Jinping begins to ramp up his own imperialistic and extra-territorial ambitions across the Indo-Pacific—and a devastating defeat for the West.”
