Enemy troops have regrouped and received reserves. Will the Armed Forces of Ukraine be able to gain a strategic initiative?
Ukraine needs $750 billion for its post-war revival. How much money and under what conditions is the collective West ready to allocate this?
Boris Johnson has resigned. Will his successor continue the policy of robustly supporting Ukraine?
Read the answers to these questions in the traditional weekly review from the experts of the Information Defence Project.
Was it worth surrendering Lysychansk?
On Sunday, July 3, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine announced the withdrawal of the Ukrainian army from Lysychansk. In Ukraine, such information clearly did not arouse admiration, and even isolated voices of treason were heard. On the contrary, the enemy has a solid victory “chorus”, although four months ago the issue was a victory parade on Khreshchatyk.
What actually happened – defeat or victory?
The Russian aggressor achieved local tactical success by entering the administrative borders of Luhansk Region. However, the operation continued for almost 90 days with an average rate of progress of 2-3 km per week. The enemy sustained heavy losses, especially recently, due to the use of modern Western weapons by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, primarily 155 mm howitzers and HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems).
Russian propagandists tried to “sell” the capture of Severodonetsk and Lysychansk as a great military and political success, but such narratives were most likely intended for the domestic political audience.
In Ukraine, emphasis was placed on the fact that it was possible to prevent the encirclement of the Armed Forces of Ukraine group. I will answer the civilian critics of such a decision right now; there is nothing more valuable than human life.
The answer to the military will be somewhat different – having lost territory, but retaining the army, you will be able to reoccupy what you have lost. Having lost an army, you will never regain the occupied territories.
According to a military-political account, the second phase of the war ended in a strategic draw, and an operational pause began, which our military and the enemy used for rest, preparation of reserves, and building up “weapon muscles.” Thousands of our servicemen are being trained in the UK and Germany, mastering Western technology and preparing for upcoming counter-attacks.
Now there is competition for strategic initiative, for imposing our will on the enemy. Calculations are underway – in which directions best to advance, and in which to have a temporary defence.
“Marshall Plan” for Ukraine
After the end of the Second World War, the United States offered European countries a program of economic assistance in 1948, which was named after the American Secretary of State George Marshall.
European countries received approximately $13 billion, which became the basis for their further development, the foundation of stability and well-being.
On July 4-5, at the conference in Lugano, which a lot of people compared to George Marshall’s initiative, the democratic world tried to repeat the success of the 70s.
The main issues discussed at the international meeting were post-war reconstruction projects of Ukraine. Our officials presented the plan “A strong European country is a magnet for foreign investments”, which foresees the implementation of 850 projects for a total amount of more than $750 billion over 10 years.
It is clear that no-one will give Ukraine such money immediately. First, the funds need to be found. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the issue of confiscation and transfer of Russian assets “frozen” in Ukraine was the topic of intense discussion at the conference. There are precedents: for example, the USA did not give the Taliban access to foreign reserves, but used them for humanitarian aid to Afghan refugees.
In their speeches, the donors emphasized the fact that the provision of financial assistance to Ukraine will be connected with many well-founded requirements, which are outlined in the Lugano Declaration and Principles.
Revitalization projects for Ukraine should be transparent, and their goals should be correlated with the goals of the country’s recovery. Unfortunately, if you carefully study the aforementioned plan, you get the impression that all possible “advantages” were “crammed” into it. Such things are taken lightly and undermine trust for Ukraine.
And one more point, almost the most important thing in our relations with donor countries is the issue of corruption, or rather, the fight against it. Our officials need to understand that the collective West will not tolerate even a hint of corrupt devices with money that will be sent to restore the country.
The conference in Lugano united 40 countries and 20 international organizations that are ready to help Ukraine, but today it is seems to be “intentions about intentions”. The way to financing specific projects is a long one, but as the Chinese proverb says: “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
Will UK support for Ukraine fall after the resignation of Boris Johnson?
On July 7, Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the UK and, at the same time, a great friend of Ukraine, resigned. The announced reason was not related to our country – Johnson did not tell the truth when appointing one of his high-ranking officials, and, according to British ideas about political integrity, this is a serious reason to get rid of the seat of power.
By the way, many analysts connected this scandal with a Russian trail. In the past, Boris Johnson became friends with Oleksandr and Yevhen Lebedev. Oleksandr, a former KGB employee, emigrated to the UK and owns the Evening Standard newspaper. His son Yevhen, Baron of Hampton and Siberia, became a member of the House of Lords. According to insider information, the friendship ended after the start of Russian aggression, when the media owned by Lebedev began constant and harsh criticism of the actions of Johnson and the UK Government.
Johnson’s resignation caused real concern and almost panic in Ukraine. Many of my acquaintances were interested in whether aid to our country would decrease.
I want to assure you – no, it will not decrease.
In contrast to authoritarian countries, the UK foreign policy course is developed institutionally. The personal factor, although it affects this process, is not decisive. Public and political support for Ukraine in the UK is quite strong and stable. The Tories retain their majority in the UK Parliament and will form a new government with a new leader.
Everyone is interested in who will be his successor.
A survey conducted among members of the Conservative Party recently. The leader with a support level of 13% is the current Minister of Defence, Ben Wallace, who has done no less than the current Prime Minister to provide Ukraine with modern weapons. Unfortunately, he said that he would not apply for the position of the head of the government. Among the contenders is the UK Minister of Foreign Affairs, Liz Truss, who has always taken a tough stance on Russian aggression.
But no matter who becomes the prime minister of the UK, its policy of supporting our country will not change.
There are some predictions that Boris Johnson will not be without a job either. According to inside information, the issue of his appointment to the post of NATO Secretary General in place of Jens Stoltenberg is being considered this autumn.
Ukrainians have no doubt that Boris Johnson is capable of giving the Alliance a second lease of life during fundamental reform of NATO.
By the way, Ukrainian ladies and gentlemen, don’t you think that our chances of joining NATO will increase significantly if Johnson becomes its Secretary-General?
Ihor Zhdanov, Information Defence Project, The Open Policy Foundation
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and not necessarily those of the Kyiv Post.
