Fighting in these regions between the
Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian insurgents has escalated in recent weeks, with
substantial casualties rising on both sides. Despite significant gains made by
government troops in the first week of
July, the rebels struck back with rocket attacks on July 11, killing many
Ukrainian soldiers and throwing into disarray some of the tactics used by the
army, as evidenced by the dismissal of the commanding general of the army
brigade that came under attack.
It had been argued by some from day number one that a military victory in the Donbas cannot be
achieved by Ukrainian forces because the ongoing war is really the war between
Ukraine and Russia. The latter has all the resources to provide the military
power for the insurgents as they need to avoid defeat. This is almost a truism
miraculously and almost unanimously ignored by politicians.
It is apparent that the Ukrainian media are
almost completely silent about the dead-end faced by Ukrainian forces in the
east. No debate is appearing anywhere on the most probable results of this war
and the drain of resources in Ukraine. Instead,
attention is focused on the ongoing give-and- take in the fighting and the
usual dialectics and some pamphleteering directed at friends and enemies.
Diversion of journalistic topics in Kyiv
towards abstractions is a living proof that Vlad Putin’s game of tiring Ukraine
in the east is succeeding. There seems to be a tacit consensus that only
sanctions, stronger sanctions from the US may compel him to let up.
On the other hand, the Ukrainian effort to
recapture the Donbas might be made look conceptually worthwhile if it could be shown that: (a) The
population in Donbas is pro-Ukrainian, and (b) Ukraine needs the industrial
rust belt of Donbas. I have argued that neither of these propositions is true.
Remarkably, no one seems to be able or willing to try to refute it.
Vital issues are on the backburner, such as
the most probable consequences of an unending war in the east, including the
economic squeeze and the looming gas shortages. Alternatives such as
withdrawing from Donbas (and, among the results, greatly reducing the need for
foreign gas imports) are apparently off the table. The result is a stalemate
which Ukraine cannot afford.
There is no denial that some positive
outcomes will be achieved from military engagement against Russia’s proxies in
Donbas. The most important will be the improvement s in the shape of the
Ukrainian army and its ability to fight, which until now had been highly
questionable — because of its virtual
dismantlement during the regime of Viktor Yanukovych, the previous president.
The emphasis must continue on the buildup
of Ukraine’s military force, with or without a fight in the east. But, given a
will and a priority, it can be more substantially achieved if resources are not
overspent on an unwinnable war.
This writing is not intended to indulge in
blaming Ukraine’s president. Petro Poroshenko is a kind of leader capable of
pulling some rabbits from his sleeve. But the Ukrainian people, the activists,
and first of all the media must not hesitate to ask some tough questions. The
latter in its silence must not play a role of the enablers — as
the American media had played over many years, winking at the ill-fated US invasion and occupation of
Iraq lasting over 9 years.
Most likely, the ongoing fighting in the
east may be ended with the presidents of Ukraine and Russia arriving at some
agreement providing the face-saving for both, as indicated in a Kyiv Post
op-ed, July 7.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
