Belated support from the West

The White House was ready for such a course of events. Because the very next day, that is, on Aug. 26, the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden carefully “leaked” information to The Wall Street Journal about big plans to announce within a few weeks a long-term military mission to support Ukraine and even appoint a separate general responsible for military-technical assistance and training of the Ukrainian military.

However, despite the fact that global intentions have been announced, the content and pace of implementing such an ambitious task are still unknown. Meanwhile, this is precisely what will demonstrate the desire or unwillingness of Ukraine's partners to bring the war to a close by the end of 2022.

The fact that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are ready to liberate the south of Ukraine by the end of the year has been widely discussed by many politicians, including the openly militant British Prime Minister Boris Johnson during the NATO summit in Madrid.

It's been a month since Ukraine took back the momentum at the front

It looked logical and realistic: Due to their resilience, the Ukrainian military deserved qualitative changes in support with modern weapons. It's been a month since Ukraine took back the momentum at the front from Russia, but strategic advantages require other attributes.

There is still a high risk of a counteroffensive — the Armed Forces of Ukraine have not yet received powerful medium-range air defense systems. And it is likely its partners did not supply (at least in significant quantities) operational-tactical missiles, as well as attack drones and tanks.

Dragging on until spring

It is quite clear why the West is in no hurry to accelerate the development of events. The artificial energy crisis created by the Kremlin in Europe, Putin’s rather successful nuclear blackmail, and certain politicians' unwillingness to depose Putin made the idea of too much assistance to Ukraine seem unappealing.

The Biden administration, for reasons of political expediency, does not pay attention to an obvious fact that has been repeatedly confirmed by military experts. That is, if new, advanced weapons are not provided to Ukraine within two or three months before the cold weather, the war may drag on until spring, which is exactly what Putin wants.

And although things are going poorly for Putin, the resources of the Russian Federation will be quite enough to mobilize a certain number of people and find weapons — this already guarantees the continuation of a protracted, exhausting war. This probably could have been avoided if the West acted more decisively.

The future of the war

Recently, the well-known U.S. General Ben Hodges stressed that Ukraine needs long-range missiles and even more artillery in order to launch a major counteroffensive. He appealed to the fact that the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not have enough weapons to have a "decisive effect."

Among other things, the general provided a weighty argument, addressing the U.S. military and political establishment: After the attack on the air base in Saki, the Russians began to urgently leave Crimea and did not show any initiative to protect the “holy land” of the peninsula, which indicates a clear understanding that Crimea is not their land.

Hodges said that the duration of the war in Ukraine largely depends on whether the U.S. can fulfill promises, in particular to deliver the promised weapons. He also stated his belief that Russia can be pushed back to the Feb. 23 line by the end of the year.

The duration of the war in Ukraine largely depends on whether the U.S. can fulfill promises.

The process of rearming Ukraine requires time. Besides, some of it is already lost. So, the forecasts of Western experts about the beginning of the expulsion of Russian invaders from the occupied territories refer mainly to the first half of 2023. But the West's lack of conviction means a difficult and bloody future for Ukraine.