The Daily - Ukraine’s Counteroffensive Fizzled. U.S. Funding May Be Next.

Episode Date: December 12, 2023

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is making a rare trip to Washington this week, pleading his case for American military aid, something which has long been a lifeline for his country but is now increasingly in doubt.Julian Barnes, who covers international security for The Times, explains what has brought Ukraine to the most perilous point since the war began nearly two years ago.Guest: Julian E. Barnes, a correspondent covering the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security for The New York Times.Background reading: The U.S. and Ukraine are searching for a new strategy after a failed counteroffensive.The Ukrainian leader will be appealing for more military support from the United States as an emboldened Russia steps up its attacks on his country.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

From The New York Times, I'm Sabrina Tavernisi, and this is The Daily. Ukraine's President, Vladimir Zelensky, has made a rare trip to Washington this week, pleading his case for American military aid. Long a lifeline for his country, but now increasingly in doubt. Today, my colleague Julian Barnes on what has brought Ukraine to its most perilous point since the war began nearly two years ago. It's Tuesday, December 12th. So, Julian, you've been following the war in Ukraine, which is kind of the other war that's been happening in the world.

And today we're going to talk about how that war has not only continued, but really has reached a critical point, one in which the United States plays a very important role. So tell me what's happening. This is a real important moment for Ukraine. It might be the most dangerous since the war first began. And there's a reason for that. Mr. President, the question before the Senate today is simple yet momentous. The American funding for Ukraine hangs in the balance. At stake is America's safety, the safety of democracy, the future of the war in Ukraine.

Last week, there was an important Senate vote that would have provided $50 billion more for Ukraine. This would have taken them through next year. My Democratic colleagues support security for Ukraine, but what they won't support is basic border security for the United States of America. The Republican opposition to this is growing. There will never be a bill I'll vote for to help other countries who are very deserving until we control our own border that's completely broken. There are lawmakers who want to spend the money at home, not in an overseas war that they think is going badly. Mr. Sullivan, no. Mr. Paul, no. Ms. Murkowski, no.

But it failed. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 51. That failed by a single vote. The motion is not agreed to. The Senate stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. Returned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. If this funding does not come through, Ukraine will lose the war. And we can see how grave those stakes are because today,

President Zelensky of Ukraine is in Washington making the case for more money, making the case for continued U.S. support. So, Julian, let's unpack this here. Let's talk about where we actually are in the war right now. We left off back in June when we did an episode about the much vaunted counteroffensive the Ukrainians were undertaking. And, you know, the Ukrainians were trying to prove that they could actually go on the offensive, take territory, not just defend it from the Russians. And perhaps just as important, they were trying to prove to their Western allies, like the United States, that the money that those allies were pouring into the war was not in vain. Remind us what Zelensky said he needed at the time. So the U.S. has provided upwards of

$75 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine. And a good chunk of that was what came this year when the U.S. provided armored striker vehicles, Bradley fighting vehicles, these HIMARS rocket artillery that could go deep behind Russian lines, that when combined with European tanks from Germany and the United Kingdom, were going to be the backbone of something big. were going to be the backbone of something big. In addition to the equipment, there became this weeks-long effort to use the equipment. We were training 36,000 Ukrainian soldiers in order to make a dramatic new push to push back Russian forces. So he got all of these weapons in all of this U.S. training,

and the counteroffensive finally began around early last summer. And now, six months later, what's the answer? What happened? Well, it failed. The counteroffensive failed to achieve the key objectives that Ukraine had laid out, that the U.S. had laid out. It did not take back major territory that Russia had conquered. Russia still today occupies nearly 20 percent of Ukraine's territory. And why did it fail? Why did this effort to really seize back all of this territory that Russia won in the early months of the war fall flat? Well, one reason was the Ukrainian troops were stretched too thin. The Americans really wanted Ukraine to focus their forces in one area, to put massive amounts of force in a single location in order to have a dramatic breakthrough. But the Ukrainians spread it out along a long battle line. And

that just meant that for too long, there were too few Ukrainian forces. Okay, so Ukraine was stretched all over the country fighting on multiple fronts instead of focused just in one place on one key crucial front that the United States was arguing it should be doing. What else was going on? Well, Russia also got better. Now, remember, it's easier to be on the defense than on the offense in a war. And so Russia had that advantage. But they'd also learned from some of their mistakes, and they really focused on improving their defenses. And they built these layers of defense, these trench lines where they could keep their troops.

And in between, they put mine upon mine. We had some of the thickest landmines we've seen since the Korean War. It proved to be an impenetrable defense. Wow. And then they combined that old technology with a new one. In the air, they put thousands of drones. And those drones could spot any movement by the Ukrainians. As the Ukrainians came to move across a minefield, the Russians would move their forces and they would engage. It kind of lifted the fog of war. And the Russians were able to react much more quickly than the Americans or the Ukrainians thought they would. So suddenly the Russians had these kind of X-ray glasses, right?

They could see everything the Ukrainians were doing at any given moment because they had all of these drones flying up in the air, which I'm assuming, Julian, weren't super specialized attack things. They were just regular kind of out-of-the-box drones? Yeah. These are incredibly simple drones, the same thing that you can purchase from your favorite big box store. But the important thing is the Ukrainians weren't trained on how to fight a war against a thousand cheap drones in the sky. We were training them on an older kind of warfare

that it turns out was outmoded. And look, the U.S. for years has tried to train up partner forces in its own image. Think about Iraq, Afghanistan, even think about Vietnam. Think about Iraq, Afghanistan, even think about Vietnam. And here, the U.S. said, we are going to teach you, Ukraine, the basics of what the U.S. calls maneuver warfare, how to use tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery to have a big effect on the battlefield. But the Ukrainians aren't the U.S. They didn't have all the equipment. Most importantly, they didn't have an air force. When the U.S. brings out its tanks,

it also has airplanes in the sky protecting those tanks. And Ukraine didn't have that. So this all seems to go back to the notion that we had at the very beginning of this war, which is, if you're a little country, how do you go up against one of the world's biggest armies and win? Moreover, one of the world's biggest armies in a country run by an autocrat who is okay with having a lot of casualties because for the most part, he probably doesn't have to pay a political price for that. That's right. Russia has a seemingly endless supply of soldiers. They've pushed in these wave attacks that they've taken massive casualties with little repercussions to Putin back at home. repercussions to Putin back at home. That's a very hard thing to go up against. And the U.S.

argued that in a moment of existential crisis, Ukraine had no choice but to be willing to take more casualties, even if thousands of people were killed, even if hundreds of pieces of equipment were lost. But President Zelensky pushed back. He said, you're asking me to take 50% casualty rates, even more. And this is not something any democratic government would do. The U.S. would face real repercussions if they had a military operation that half of the soldiers were lost in. So it became a political as well as a military problem. Which brings us to today. The counteroffensive has failed for the most part, which means that the U.S. and other allies have poured billions of dollars into Ukraine over the course of the past two years, and it didn't work, which must be pretty galling for parts of the U.S. political system, which are not very enthusiastic about funding the thing to begin with.

So what does all of this mean for Ukraine vis-a-vis the funding? Nothing good. I mean, who wants to put money into a failing effort? Who wants to toss good money after wasted money? So the big question is, how are the Ukrainians going to adapt their war strategy? And will it be enough to convince the United States and its allies that Ukraine can win and can turn the tide back in their favor? We'll be right back. We'll be right back.

Okay, so Julian, you've just explained all the ways in which the counteroffensive went wrong. And you're saying that now the question is, will Ukraine adapt? Can it retool what it's been doing? What are the options before Ukraine on the table here? What could they do to get back on track? So what American strategists are pushing is this idea of hold and build. And that means don't go on the offensive, but to spend the next year rebuilding its forces, resting its forces. You'd rotate some of the troops off the front lines.

They've been there for two years fighting. Ukraine would rebuild its own capacity to build weapons, artillery shells, missiles, and be ready for a future offensive at the end of 2024 or even 2025. So in other words, kind of conserve your energy, forget about trying to do some major land grab, just stay put and plan for something bigger in the future. But what does that actually get them? I mean, wars are not won by going on the defensive, right? The Ukrainians are keenly aware of that. And this is the reason they have been pushing back against the American strategy. They know that they need to do something dramatic to change the conversation about the war, to change the perception that they are losing.

that they are losing. So another option is for Ukraine to double down on the things that they are good at. And so that could be black ops going behind enemy lines. You know, we have seen the Ukrainians do these raids into Crimea, these strikes with long-range missiles into the Russian Black Sea fleet. We've had the first country without a navy to win a major naval battle against the Russian Black Sea fleet just through these kind of crafty, covert operations.

They have proven adept at this. They've proven very creative. But some folks think that's not enough. That if they're going to show the world that they can win, if they're going to show America that they deserve new funding, they need to do something dramatic and flashy. That could be something like attacking the Kerch Bridge, which goes between Russia and Crimea. The Kerch Bridge is the way the Russians supply Crimea, one of their most important military hubs.

The Ukrainians have attacked it before, but some people are saying they need to bring the whole thing down to destroy this project that Vladimir Putin put billions into. As you say, spectacular, flashy. Right. And there are other ideas as well. They could try to go where the Russians are not. The Ukrainians could try to go into Russia. Look, last year, Yevgeny Progozhin marched his army halfway through Moscow and was barely opposed. Indeed, the Russian commander who kind of went rogue and decided to take his troops to Moscow because he wasn't happy about military policy. I mean, that was dramatic. Certainly everybody noticed.

And showed some Russian weakness, right? Like there were a lot of patches of undefended Russian territory. Now, there's all kinds of reasons the Ukrainians shouldn't do that. That could escalate this fight quickly. On the other hand, it would really lay out the cost to Moscow. It would really show the Americans what the Ukrainians are capable of. Could escalate the fight quickly, even potentially to a nuclear one. I mean, this was the whole reason why the U.S. didn't want the Ukrainians trying to go into Russia, right? That's right. Russian officials have been very clear

that their doctrine is they use nuclear weapons when their territory is threatened. Ukrainian army marching into Russia would cross that line. Okay, so just to summarize here, the other option in front of the Ukrainians is to do what they're good at, which is small black ops operations kind of behind enemy lines type stuff. But that also seems kind of tricky. I mean, that's not going to turn the tide

of the war more broadly in their favor, right? Or critically going to convince Ukraine's Western allies to open up their wallets. And Ukraine does need to make that case. Look, they're already running out of ammunition. Supplies are already growing short. Now, the Pentagon says Ukraine has enough supplies to last another four to five months. But eventually, those supplies, that equipment is going to need to be replenished. They're going to need to make the case to the United States for more funding. Which is presumably why Zelensky is in Washington as we speak. Okay, so Julian, do you think that, you know, at the end of the day,

this funding will actually happen? Like, what's your gut on this? The most important person in the American political system... Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to speak to you today. The most important person in the American political system is the president. And he seems willing to break the impasse. This is too serious. Like I said, I am willing to make significant compromises on the border. We need to fix the broken border system. It is broken. He said it in his speech last week.

He made it very plain that he is ready to negotiate. Let's get this done. We're the reason Putin has not totally overrun Ukraine and moved beyond that. President Biden has really made the war in Ukraine his war. He is extraordinarily motivated to get this approved. He is extraordinarily motivated to get this approved. And that willingness to make a deal on border security, on Republican priorities, will make a difference. Now, look, some of my colleagues may disagree, but I think there's a good chance this gets through. We may go into the next calendar year. It may happen in January or

even February. But I believe there will eventually be a deal and the United States will give Ukraine funding for next year. But it sounds like even if you're right, and our colleagues are wrong, even if it does happen early next year, that that's probably about it for funding, right? I mean, the U.S. is about to enter a presidential election season. Funding will become much more difficult as the months go on.

So I guess, Julian, the question in my mind is, are we entering the chapter in the history books whose title would be When the West Abandoned Ukraine? Look, if Ukraine comes up with a new strategy, if the U.S. continues funding at some level, there is hope. Ukraine is not going to get the same level of funding that they've had for the first two years of war. But even a war on a budget is a war that could be won. But is it, though? I mean, the whole critique of how the West was funding Ukraine was that the West was giving Ukraine just enough funding so that it did not lose,

but not enough funding so that it actually could win. did not lose, but not enough funding so that it actually could win. Look, after two years of war, it now seems like it's going to be very difficult for Ukraine to push the Russians completely out. We're not going to go back to the 2014 lines. As we said, if the war stopped today, that's 20% of Ukraine that is gone. With a new approach, maybe some of that land could be taken. Or at the very least, Russia would be in a worse position and Ukraine would be in a better position when diplomatic talks inevitably restart, the diplomatic talks that will be necessary to ultimately end the fighting. So in other words, this isn't about absolutes, right? It's not like Ukraine would suddenly completely win the war and push the Russians out entirely. This is about putting Ukraine

in a better position at the inevitable bargaining table that, of course, happens at the end of every war, right, with Putin. What is he thinking as he sees all of this play out? From the Russian perspective, what is happening is just what they wanted. Vladimir Putin's strategy was to outlast the West. The funding debate, the election debate, has given him reason to believe his strategy is working, that the U.S. is getting tired of supporting Ukraine. Putin has always argued Ukraine is more important to him than it is to the West. And he has said, being patient, being strategic, will win him this war. In some ways, this entire funding debate is about whether or not Putin's theory of the case

is correct. And in the weeks to come, we are going to get that answer. Julian, thank you. Thank you. On Monday, the Russian military delivered one of the most intense missile bombardments against Ukraine's capital in months. The strike came one day after a video circulated of Putin sipping champagne at an awards ceremony in Moscow and talking about waning Western support for Kyiv.

talking about waning Western support for Kyiv. Ukraine, he said, had, quote, no future. Thank you so much. Meanwhile, in Washington. Putin must lose. Putin must lose. President Zelensky gave a speech ahead of his meeting with President Biden, which is scheduled for Tuesday. When the free world hesitates. Zelensky said, quote, when the free world hesitates, that's when dictatorships celebrate. We'll be right back.

Here's what else to know today. Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald Trump on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, asked the Supreme Court to rule on Trump's argument that, as a former president, he is immune from prosecution. Two weeks ago, the trial judge presiding over Trump's case, one of the many prosecutions he now faces, rejected the former president's sweeping claims that he enjoyed, quote, absolute immunity because the case was based on actions he took while still in office. Trump appealed the judge's decision, leading to Smith's move on Monday, which is an effort to keep the proceedings on track. The trial is scheduled to begin on March 4th, and any significant delay could push it past the 2024 election, when Trump could order that the charges be dropped if he wins the presidency. Today's episode was produced by Luke Van Der Ploeg and Shannon Lin.

It was edited by Lexi Diao with help from Michael Benoit. Contains original music by Marian Lozano and Dan Powell. And was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderland. That's it for The Daily. I'm Sabrina Tavernisi. See you tomorrow.