We continue to write about the articles of the special issue of The Atlantic dedicated to Ukraine, which will be published in October. Today, its website published an analytical article by Phillips Payson OʼBrien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, in which he gives his thoughts on Ukraineʼs counterattack on Kherson. After Ukrainian official sources began talking loudly in July about plans to liberate Kherson, the Russians reacted like a bull reacts to a red rag: they began moving reinforcements en masse to prepare for the Ukrainian attack. OʼBrien writes that this was Ukraineʼs plan, and the Russian response plays into Kyivʼs hands. The battle in the Kherson region has a number of disadvantages for Russia ― difficult supply routes and limited opportunities for air attacks. Although Putin has a reputation as a strategic genius, it seems that Ukrainians have exposed the limitations and predictability of his thinking, the author writes. But despite the previous successes of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, liberating such a large area (and the contact line here is currently about 150 kilometers long, the occupied territory is sometimes 50 kilometers deep) will be a difficult challenge, OʼBrien believes. Since World War II, such offensives have relied on control of the skies, but Ukraine currently doesnʼt have that advantage. Earlier in this war, the success of the Ukrainians was based on the effective use of drones and portable artillery, but these means are unlikely to ensure the successful liberation of Kherson. It is likely that Ukraine will use new weapons provided by Western partners, as well as actively use intelligence that will help to accurately aim at Russian positions. In the opinion of the author, Ukraine will not move tanks en masse towards the positions of the Russians, instead continuing to attack their weak points one by one. OʼBrien believes that this operation will get into the textbooks and will carry lessons for the future of military affairs. In the authorʼs opinion, the slow build-up of offensive capabilities, provoking the enemy to move their resources exactly where they are easier to destroy, and long-term depletion of supplies ― this is what modern warfare looks like.
The Washington Post writes about the EUʼs next steps in the economic war with Russia. This Friday, a meeting of the ministers of the European Union countries will take place, during which they will discuss a plan of measures that will help survive the winter. The European Commission has proposed five steps for this, including a plan to redistribute excess revenue to some energy producers, cap the price of piped gas and cut electricity consumption during peak hours. The plan was introduced in part in response to Gazprom halting the flow of gas through a key pipeline. In this way, the EU demonstrates unity and solidarity, says European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The publication writes that, despite the words about unity, the EU countries do not agree on the details of the plan: some are concerned about the tax on excess profits, others about gas price restrictions. According to energy expert Simone Tagliapietra, Putin will try to use the differences between the blocʼs leaders to his advantage. He has already threatened to cut off supplies of petroleum products, coal and gas in response to oil price caps imposed by the G7.
The Telegraphʼs security editor Con Colin writes that Putinʼs total defeat is finally on the horizon, but much depends on the UKʼs new Prime Minister, Liz Truss. Colin believes that the recent intensification of Kremlin propaganda shows just how bad things really are. The author cites one very illustrative example: on the Kremlin TV channel in Britain, the show Wheel of Fortune was broadcast, where the main prize was the payment of electricity bills in winter. This is how Moscow is trying to advance the narrative that Europeans will suffer because of the sanctions against the Russian Federation imposed by their states. In a sense, writes Colin, such propaganda in Britain is evidence that London played an important role in the economic war against Russia. According to the author, Great Britainʼs position towards Russia will only strengthen during Liz Trussʼ term. This is proven by the appointment of James Cleverly as Foreign Minister and the retention of Ben Wallace as Defense Minister. Cleverly and Wallace will not only support Britainʼs current course, but can also play a role in strengthening the countryʼs defense power, which will be a guarantee of stability in the region.