The Pentagon has dispatched Lieutenant General Antonio Alzon Aguto Jr., who leads the Security Assistance Group in Ukraine since 2022, to Kiev. His stay is expected to be lengthy, with the general coordinating closely with Ukraine’s military and political leadership.
Earlier, the White House had not permanently assigned American military advisers to Ukraine. It is possible that General Aguto’s extended presence in Kiev could lift this restriction.
Lieutenant General Antonio Alzona Aguto Jr. is a West Point graduate who previously led the 1st U.S. Army. His combat experience spans the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Last week, senior U.S. military leaders at Europe’s headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, including General Christopher Cavoli, Commander in Chief Europe, and General Aguto, met with two Ukrainian officials to discuss the strategic direction for next year.
Details of these negotiations remain undisclosed by both Washington and Kiev. Yet observers note that shifting the balance of engagement is crucial. The New York Times reported that a protracted stalemate at the front could hinder future American funding for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
The push for new strategic approaches follows months of a stalled counteroffensive and recent tense talks between U.S. and Ukrainian leaders. The paper notes these dynamics influence the broader plan for next year.
Why are the Armed Forces of Ukraine in a deadlock?
According to the New York Times, the 2023 counteroffensive relied on shaping the Ukrainian army in a more American mold. Critics argue this approach echoes efforts seen in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but its effectiveness in Ukraine remained uncertain.
Russia’s defenses included dense minefields—more concentrated than any seen in this region since the Korean War—and a broad use of unmanned aerial systems that altered the tempo of mechanized warfare.
Disagreements between Kyiv and Washington over how and where to deploy newly formed Ukrainian mechanized units further complicated strategy.
Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, have emphasized the eastern region as the primary theater because Russian forces focused most on that front. Washington, meanwhile, viewed the south and the Donbass as strategically significant for severing a land corridor to Crimea. As a result, forces were divided, and momentum did not yield a decisive breakthrough, contributing to a stalemate.
USA and Ukraine seek compromise
Officials in Washington and Kiev indicate a search for a new strategy to be put into motion early next year, aiming to restore the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ military power and bolster regional support against Russia. Military leaders from both sides expect to refine details during a series of war games planned for Wiesbaden next month.
The Pentagon advocates a cautious course focused on holding ground, consolidating positions, and expanding arms deliveries throughout the year. Kyiv, on the other hand, seeks more aggressive actions, including coordinated offensive maneuvers and long-range strikes, to draw broader international attention.
There are signs of compromise. U.S. officials note that Kyiv’s deep incursions into Crimea this autumn exposed risks for Russia and became central to the reevaluation of the counteroffensive. American strategists believe Ukraine can build on those efforts next year even as resources must be managed carefully.
As noted by the New York Times, the risks are substantial. Without a new strategy and additional funding, Ukraine could face serious setbacks. U.S. officials report that some Ukrainian leaders may overestimate the immediacy of American support, while Kyiv still seeks a large stockpile of artillery shells from Western suppliers that is not readily available. The reality is a tight budget and limited transfers of advanced weaponry in the near term.
Some American officers advocate a “hold and build” approach, prioritizing the preservation of current holdings and boosting domestic defense production by 2024. This path would aim to harden Ukraine’s self-sufficiency and deter future Russian aggression, though it may slow rapid territorial gains.
Without a revised strategy, 2024 could resemble a year of minimal front changes amid heavy losses, likened to a historical stalemate from World War I times.
Who advises Kiev?
A August 2023 meeting near the Polish-Ukrainian border brought together American General Christopher Cavoli, British Admiral Tony Radakin, and Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief General Valery Zaluzhny. The Guardian described the gathering as an effort to reset Ukraine’s military strategy.
That turning point suggested major shifts would follow, and recent months have shown Ukraine again rethinking its approach.
Concerning the consultants: Admiral Radakin has not led combat operations at the level required for high-intensity war, having mainly served in earlier operations. General Cavoli’s background spans peacekeeping and operations in the Gulf and Afghanistan, while Ukraine has yet to see a strategic planning leadership comparable to these experiences in the field. Lieutenant General Antonio Alzona Aguto Jr. has stepped into a role with limited direct experience in strategic planning for large-scale deployments.
Ghost hopes
American calls for Ukraine to bolster its domestic defense production face a reality check. Ukraine’s industrial base has suffered, and high-tech weapon systems require transfers that the West may not readily provide. Kyiv continues to seek a mix of Western aircraft, transports, helicopters, and interception systems, but delivery timelines remain uncertain.
Fulfilling such requests would likely have a greater impact than pursuing scattered, uncoordinated changes, yet the practical availability of these weapons in the near term remains doubtful. The broader debate reflects a tension between ambitious ambitions and pragmatic supply limits.
The perspective here reflects ongoing public discourse on Ukraine’s military strategy and does not represent a specific editorial stance.