Recently, an article was published in the prestigious American publication The Atlantic raising many important questions about the United States’ strategy regarding Ukraine. The material examines the positions not only of politicians but also of experts specializing in military analysis. Is Ukraine receiving enough support from the U.S. to win the war? What changes are needed in the strategy to help the Ukrainian people? Let’s consider the key points of the article and supplement them with current information.
1. Insufficient Support for Victory
According to the material, the American strategy is to provide Ukraine with enough military assistance to avoid defeat but not to achieve victory. This raises questions about the true intentions of the U.S. Is Ukraine at risk of becoming a protracted war similar to the conflicts in Vietnam or Afghanistan?
American military analysts argue that such a strategy could have undesirable consequences. The lack of decisive support only prolongs the war, draining the Ukrainian economy, resources, and human lives. According to the Institute for the Study of War, protracted conflicts often lead to significant losses and do not allow for a clear victory.
2. Full Military Support Needed
The second thesis highlights the necessity of providing Ukraine with everything necessary to successfully resist Russian aggression. The United States has a unique opportunity to help Ukraine not only defend itself but also thwart the global ambitions of countries like China and Iran. Ukrainian politicians have repeatedly emphasized that supporting Ukraine is an investment in global security.
In today’s world of geopolitical challenges, control over military conflicts and spheres of influence becomes strategically important. If the U.S. does not provide Ukraine with everything needed for victory, it could lead to a weakening of Western positions on the global stage.
3. Moral Aspect of Supporting Ukraine
The third thesis has an important moral aspect. If the USA continues to encourage Ukraine to fight without providing enough resources for victory, history may interpret this as complicity in prolonging the conflict. Experts from Human Rights Watch point out that in such cases, the international community bears responsibility for the consequences of the conflict if it fails to take steps to end it.
There is also an opinion that a protracted conflict may increase the risk of new war crimes and humanitarian catastrophes. This, in turn, will affect the reputation of the USA as a global leader defending human rights and international law.
4. Innovation Race on the Battlefield
Once, the HIMARS systems were the main weapon for Ukraine. However, their effectiveness has significantly decreased to 10%. The reason for this is Russian innovations in electronic warfare. This war has become a testing ground for new technologies from both sides, and victory depends on who can better adapt to new challenges.
Ukraine is actively implementing new technologies on the battlefield. In particular, drones have become an important tool in modern warfare. According to Defense News, Ukraine has become one of the world leaders in the use of drones for military purposes, developing new strategies and solutions for their effective application.
What’s Next?
Despite the bold statements in the article, the question remains open as to whether the USA’s strategy towards Ukraine will change. If decisive steps are not taken, the situation may remain in limbo, further bloodshedding Ukraine.
