by Jeff Childers
Let’s bookmark yesterday’s cheerful Financial Times headline, to check and see where we are next year this time: “Jake Sullivan says US military aid will help Ukraine mount counteroffensive in 2025.”
Referring to Biden Administration optimistic plans about the war next year, Sullivan said Ukraine intends to “to move forward to recapture the territory that the Russians have taken from them.” Recapture the territory? Does he mean all the parts of Ukraine colored in red on the map below? I can’t wait.
Sure! It could happen. Jake Sullivan said so. I mean, since the last glorious counteroffensive went so well and everything.
Compared to last year’s Glorious Ukraine Counteroffensive, Russia now has even more troops, who are more experienced, more and better weapons, holds more territory, more fortified positions, and has more strategic options. And has a stronger war economy. Meanwhile Ukraine has fewer troops, who are less experienced, fewer and worse weapons, fewer fortifications, and fewer options.
Ukraine has no economy. So it’s not precisely clear how the New Glorious Counteroffensive could possibly improve on the previous one.
Later down the article, the Financial Times accidentally let slip the mask of official deceit:
Any new offensive in 2025 by Ukraine would be dependent on more funding from Congress, and approval by the White House. Zelenskyy said there is a plan for another counteroffensive but that it is contingent on more weapons, including from the US.
Whose war is it again? Ukraine’s? I’m sure the Financial Times meant that “approval by the White House” would modify “more funding,” but unfortunately the sentence reads just as grammatically correct if “approval by the White House” qualifies “any new offensive.”
Anyway, we can all see what’s going on here. Zelensky hasn’t even gotten the current $61 billion in aid and he’s already mounting a rhetorical counteroffensive on next year’s glorious appropriations request.
