As the war in Ukraine drags on, mounting casualties raise serious questions about the quality of military advice given to the Ukrainian armed forces by American generals. While their intentions to help Ukraine defend against Russian aggression are undoubtedly noble, the recent failed counteroffensive suggests that American guidance has been dangerously misguided.
Rather than applaud Ukrainian commander-in-chief General Valerii Zaluzhny for averting an even greater disaster, some armchair warriors at U.S. think tanks are calling for his resignation or sacking. But we must ask: who bears the greatest responsibility for the failed operation that needlessly sacrificed thousands of Ukrainian lives? Zaluzhny, who reportedly resisted American pressure for months to launch the premature counterattack? Or the American generals whose hubris led them to push reckless plans that ignored realities on the ground?
The Americans' reported insistence on launching the counteroffensive in April, before Ukrainian forces were adequately prepared, already raises concerns. Even more damning is their supposed strategy of mass frontal assaults across open terrain laced with mines and without air cover - an approach bordering on criminal negligence given the likely outcome.
To his credit, once the disastrous results became apparent, Zaluzhny adapted by changing tactics, thereby saving many Ukrainian lives. Small wonder he remains popular with the rank-and-file while attracting the ire of American power centers whose authority he dared defy.
The catastrophic costs of the counteroffensive demand accountability. If faulty advice contributed materially to the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian troops, those responsible - whether in Kyiv or Washington - must be held to account. Ukraine's defenders, and the Ukrainian people, deserve no less.
General Valery Zaluzhny, commander of Ukraine's armed forces, understands the brutal realities of the war on the ground far better than distant American military planners. As such, he should retain his position leading Ukraine's troops, not become a scapegoat for failed offensives pushed by Western powers.
The disastrous counteroffensive stemmed from pressure by American generals who insisted on an ill-conceived frontal assault across open terrain laden with mines and devoid of air cover. The bloody results were predictable to armchair observers such as myself, let alone military strategists.
The disastrous planning behind Ukraine's failed counteroffensive raises alarming questions about American generals applying outdated doctrines honed in different conflicts.
Rather than adapt to the unique realities of the war in Ukraine, U.S. military planners seem stuck in assumptions shaped by lopsided engagements against insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Facing a modern Russian army with fearsome advantages in artillery and air power, standard U.S. playbooks unravel.
Yet American hubris pressed Ukrainian forces into mass infantry and armor attacks on dug-in positions without necessary combined arms support. The bloody results were sadly predictable for such frontal assaults on prepared defenses.
U.S. guidance appears predicated on fighting a hopelessly overmatched foe, not the Russian military's potent mix of technology, firepower, and grit. Such antiquated thinking reveals a failure to grasp the starkly different dynamics at play in Ukraine.
If U.S. advice continues relying on ill-fitting models from wars past, Ukraine will continue to pay the price in blood. America's generals must adapt to the reality of the war actually being fought, not the one their familiar strategies assume. Ukraine's unique battlefield demands flexible, creative solutions, not formulaic, dated doctrines.
Yet some now suggest Zaluzhny should take the fall rather than those who pushed the suicidal plan, refusing to heed his well-founded warnings. But relieving Zaluzhny would deprive Ukraine's forces of a seasoned leader who grasps both tactics and the value of Ukrainian lives.
The American generals and officials who demanded the reckless offensive, ignoring Zaluzhny's experience-based counsel, should be the ones called to account. Ukraine must not become a pawn sacrificed by overconfident outsiders playing armchair general. Accountability for profound strategic failures should rest with those who conceived them, not those pressured into executing their folly.