US and Western authorities must decide quickly on changing the kind of weapons sent to Ukraine and equip it with long-range missiles, fighters, and tanks, says military analyst and former CIA officer Philip Wasielewski. He argues that the West’s self-imposed limits in this area do not make sense and that such weapons are essential for the success of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
READ MORE: RELATIONSHIP. 157th day of Russian aggression against Ukraine. Zelensky: Russia must be legally recognized as a terrorist state
Ukrainians prepare for counteroffensive
More than five months after the Russian invasion began on a large scale, the Russian offensive has largely stalled, and Ukraine is gearing up for a counteroffensive. According to Wasielewski, an analyst at the American Foreign Policy Research Institute, the outcome will depend largely on two factors: Ukraine’s human reserves and the weapons supplied by the United States and the Western allies.
Carl von Clausewitz once described an attack as a wave that rises to a peak on the shore and then rolls back. That idea is echoed by Wasielewski, who notes that the Russian offensive in Donbas has reached its peak, similar to the earlier push on Kyiv.
Additionally, a veteran CIA official and a U.S. Marine assess that while Russian forces continue to advance in small steps, many land units sent to Ukraine have been destroyed or badly damaged, and reserves are thinning, making it harder for Moscow to mobilize new forces quickly.
Such a trend is troubling for those who rely on prisons or retiree clubs as sources of manpower. Wasielewski describes a form of hidden mobilization by Russia out of fear of announcing a full-scale universal call-up.
Still, Ukraine has also sustained significant losses, underscoring the reality that the eventual winner will be the one who can renew, rebuild, and sustain its logistics network.
The central question now is where Ukraine’s reserves lie. Although many personnel have been called up to replenish frontline units, there may be additional backline formations preparing for a counteroffensive, Wasielewski suggests.
Will the West rise to the challenge?
The Western-provided equipment will play a crucial role. Wasielewski notes that shipments so far have been tailored to Ukrainian needs, but those needs are evolving. This includes decommissioned American F-15 and F-16 fighters, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and long-range missiles.
What is needed now are capabilities that let Ukraine counterattack, disrupt entrenched Russian positions, seize the initiative, and reclaim territory.
He adds that while introducing some systems, such as fighter aircraft, may take months, a decision is now urgent. Experts say several months could be enough to train pilots for air-to-ground missions.
Wasielewski highlights the potential delivery of ATACMS, long-range missiles with roughly 300 kilometers of reach that are compatible with Ukrainian HIMARS launchers.
HIMARS has already forced Russia to reposition logistics 80 kilometers from front-line supply points, complicating resupply. The arrival of ATACMS would further disrupt Russian logistics and threaten the ability to supply troops on the move, Wasielewski argues.
Despite pressure in Congress, the Biden administration has not yet approved delivering these missiles. White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has warned that supplying ATACMS could escalate the conflict and risk a broader war.
“Our hesitation cannot continue”
According to a PAP interlocutor, the argument against rapid delivery seems baseless and an example of self-deterrence. Ukrainians would bear the human cost of delaying aid as Russia’s occupation persists.
Hesitation, the interlocutor contends, will increase casualties the longer the war lasts. More than a million Ukrainians have been deported to Russia, mirroring tragic patterns seen in past conflicts. The horrors witnessed in Bucha, and ongoing suffering in occupied areas, are stark reminders of the stakes involved.
Wasielewski maintains that Washington’s approach of avoiding direct involvement may be prudent, but aid to Ukraine should not be restricted by that stance.
History shows clashes between Russia and the United States in past wars, yet major escalation has not followed. In Korea, Russian pilots confronted American forces; in Vietnam, Russian missiles engaged American bombers in North Vietnam; in Afghanistan, American support to Afghan rebels persisted; and in Syria, Wagner mercenaries faced U.S. forces in contested regions. These examples illustrate the peril and the potential for escalation, but also the strategic calculus behind aid decisions.
– states the expert.
of the Criminal Code / PAP