Thread by @Mylovanov

Politico published an article about the U.S. strategy shift regarding the war in Ukraine. The article is critical. While some might read it as pro-Russian, it references numerous sources within the U.S. government.

There are at least two points about Ukraine it got wrong 1/

First, It frankly discusses internal disputes in Ukraine between military and civilians, between Zelenskyy and Zaluzhny, and even mentions Klitschko. The piece talks about the challenges of mobilization and how - quote: 2/

"With Ukraine running low on troops as well as weapons, Zelenskyy’s refusal to consider any fresh negotiations with Moscow is looking more and more politically untenable at home. ... 3/

The Ukrainian president, seeking to draft another half million troops, is facing rising domestic opposition from his military commander in chief, Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, and the mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko. " 4/

The article gets wrong that the push for mobilization is coming from Zelensky, while Zaluzhny opposes it. In reality, almost the opposite is true. Zaluzhny is asking for more troops, Zelensky's been reluctant, but the conditions are such that mobilization is now a must 5/

Also, the article argues that Zelensky position to demand return of all territory looks politically untenable at home is not true. Zelensky position is supported by the majority of people and no politician in Ukraine, opposition or not, argues otherwise. 6/

There are however internal disputes and domestic politics. I think those frictions are real, are partly due to the delay until after the war of the elections as this created an opportunity for criticism. I also think those frictions are weakening morale and should be overcome 7/

The main message of the piece is, however, different. It argues that the U.S. will be shifting Ukraine into a defense, and the U.S. thinks that Ukraine needs to prepare for the sacrifice of some territories. 8/

At the same time, the article plainly states that Putin isn't interested in negotiations, and little will change until he is. 9/

More precisely, the Biden administration is subtly shifting focus from Ukraine's complete victory to improving Ukraine's position for potential peace talks, likely meaning Ukraine will give up some territories. 10/

Whether it is really true I don't know. We have heard this before many times and nothing has come out of it. But it is true that if the US ignores the views of Ukrainians as it has done in the past its policy will misfire 11/

Publicly, the U.S. still declares support for Ukraine's pursuit of total victory and the withdrawal of Russian troops. But the article says that discussions about transitioning Ukraine to a more defensive stance are ongoing after an unsuccessful offensive. 12/

The unsuccessful counteroffensive is exactly the case in point of the intellectual arrogance. The U.S. has its own views, not to be debated or challenged, about how things should play out. While it is true that they are much more experienced, they also lack local context 13/

The counteroffensive failed for a number of reasons, but definitely not because of the lack of Ukrainian resolved. There was no air support, insufficient weapons, and with such a delay that Russians have had plenty of time to dig in and mine up 14/

https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/1737241684067651889?s=20

Anyway, the goal in the policy shift is to strengthen Ukraine's position for future negotiations, although no such talks are currently planned. 15/

https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/1690777156568195072?s=20

While the article references a recent New York Times piece about secret talks between the U.S. and Russia, it also quotes an official saying they know nothing about such negotiations. 16/

There's a noted shift in U.S. rhetoric from "as long as it takes" to "as long as we can," and it's becoming harder to garner support for Ukraine within the U.S., raising questions about future backing. 17/

At the same time, there are arguments about why some form of victory in Ukraine is becoming increasingly important for Biden. 18/

While U.S. elections typically focus on domestic policy, the absence of a recession and decreasing inflation mean foreign policy issues like Ukraine, Israel, and China will become more significant. 19/

Biden can't concede victory or any advantage to Putin after insisting on supporting Ukraine's promise of complete victory. But he needs to navigate complex domestic politics, which means looking for compromise.20/

I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from reading this article or how truthful it is, but one thing seems right: our internal disputes weaken us at a critical moment for the Ukrainian state's existence. 21/

Our enemy is Russia, and we need to find ways to unite and resist the temptation of internal political fights and other conflicts as much as possible.22/

It also means each of us should behave honorably and do what we can and know how to do for victory, rather than pursuing personal interests.23X

Source: politico.com/news/magazine/…