Frustration with the Biden Administration is beginning to set in for Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, and understandably so.

It is increasingly difficult for the general to ‘never look a gift horse in the mouth’ as critical weapon systems and munitions produced in the United States – namely ATACMS and F-16s – he deems necessary to prosecute the war against Russia are denied to him. Especially while Russian threats including missile/drone launch sites, troop and equipment staging areas awaiting movement to battlefields in Ukraine, and headquarters that command and control Russian military operations reside on the opposite side of the border in US imposed sanctuary.

These legitimate military targets are “off limits” and remain out of reach due primarily due to constraints placed upon Ukraine by the Biden Administration and modifications secretly made to US provided weapon systems – HIMARS, so they “could not be used to fire long-range missiles into Russia … a precaution the Biden administration says is necessary to reduce the risk of a wider war with Moscow.” This point was made clear by John Kirby on 5 June when he told reporters, “We don’t encourage, we don’t enable and we don’t support strikes or attacks inside Russia.”

But that was then. This is now.

17 months have passed, and the war still rages on. The Kremlin’s cruise missiles, drones, and artillery continue to rain down upon Ukrainian population centers, killing and maiming innocent civilians, while Ukrainian soldiers negotiate Russian minefields and engage in close-quarter combat in trenches.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian counteroffensive is progressing considerably slower than many anticipated. According to a New York Times article, “In the first two weeks of Ukraine’s grueling counteroffensive, as much as 20 percent of the weaponry it sent to the battlefield was damaged or destroyed … The toll includes some of the formidable Western fighting machines — tanks and armored personnel carriers — the Ukrainians were counting on to beat back the Russians.”

Ukraine’s military can ill afford to sustain that loss rate or to become bogged down and decisively engaged. They are built for maneuver warfare. They have finite resources and must choose battles wisely. But extensive defensive belts, seeded with anti-tank and anti-personnel mines are slowing the advance rate and inflicting casualties higher than expected. The time required to build capacity and train the Ukrainian military afforded Russia time to prepare their defensive positions making clearing minefields a priority effort.

De-mining is another unanticipated requirement by Washington that awaits a solution – and provides yet more time for Russia to seed and reseed minefields anew as the war approaches its 18th month.

Ukraine is beginning to grow weary of the US dictating terms of how and where they can fight the Russians. We saw this in Zelensky’s body language at the NATO Summit in Vilnius, and again in his commanding general’s comments in a recent Washington Post article, “This is our problem, and it is up to us to decide how to kill this enemy. It is possible and necessary to kill on his territory in a war. If our partners are afraid to use their weapons, we will kill with our own.”

The same month that Austin was claiming Ukraine had “a very good chance” to defeat Russia in Kyiv’s spring offensive, I wrote that embracing the concept “that Russia is going to lose the war could leave the West to be caught off guard if the Ukrainian offensive fails to materially degrade Russian positions.” One month before the start of the offensive, I explained the very practical reasons why the Ukrainian attack would almost certainly fail to achieve even modest gains.

To succeed in its operation to cut the Russian land bridge to Crimea, I wrotethat Ukrainian troops would have to attack through multiple belts of elaborate Russian defenses “with limited offensive air power, limited air defense, insufficient quantities of artillery shells, and a force that is equipped with a hodgepodge of modern and antiquated armor — staffed by a mix of conscripts with no combat experience and some officers and men with basic training by NATO instructors.”

All of those factors have now predictably conspired to blunt Kyiv’s offensive, failing after six weeks of effort to even penetrate the first belt of the main Russian defensive lines.

It’s not that Zelensky’s forces are “going slowly” forward, it’s that they aren’t attaining any of their initial tactical objectives on the way to the Azov coast and it’s precisely because the combat fundamentals necessary to win are largely (and in some cases entirely) absent. They flatly don’t have the human resources or physical infrastructure necessary to succeed.

Now, it is always possible that Russia could suffer sudden political collapse, such as what happened in 1917, and Ukraine could still emerge successful. That, however, is extremely unlikely and Kyiv would be unwise to base their future hopes upon such an event.

To continue trying will tragically result in yet more UAF troops being killed, Ukrainian cities destroyed, and push prospects for peace ever further away.

I understand everyone wants Ukraine to win and Russia to lose. But continuing to persist in pursuing that aspiration won’t change the ground truth realities. The course of action that holds out the best hope for Zelensky to emerge from this war with Ukraine retaining its political viability is to agree to a ceasefire so that negotiations can begin.

Even that’s not a guarantee of success, but the longer Ukraine delays in seeking such an outcome, the greater the chances that Russia continues building strength to launch an offensive of its own this summer or fall, possibly capturing even Kharkiv or Odessa. In other words, a stalemate might not be the worst-case scenario for Kyiv. Now is the time to develop the diplomatic track to end the war.

Russia has laid sea mines in the Black Sea that could interfere with Ukrainian grain exports, the White House announced Wednesday.



The new mines could be used to justify future attacks against civilian ships and blame Ukraine, the National Security Council said in a statement to USNI News.

“In addition to this coordinated effort in the Black Sea, we have already observed that Russia targeted Ukraine’s grain export ports in Odesa with missiles and drones on July 18 and 19, resulting in the destruction of agricultural infrastructure and 60,000 tons of grain,” reads the statement.

Two days after Russia pulled out of an agreement for Ukraine to ship grain through the Black Sea, the Kremlin declared all cargo ships traveling to Ukrainian ports as potentially carrying military cargo in support of Kyiv.

“ In connection with the cessation of the functioning of the Black Sea Grain Initiative and the сlosing of the maritime humanitarian corridor, from 00.00 Moscow time on 20 July 2023, all vessels sailing in the waters of the Black Sea to Ukrainian ports will be regarded as potential carriers of military cargo,” reads a message the MoD issued on the social messaging platform Telegram.
“Accordingly, the countries of such vessels will be considered to be involved in the Ukrainian conflict on the side of the Kyiv regime.”

The National Security Council said in the statement that it believes Russia may target the civilian ships in future attacks in addition to recent bombing in Odessa that hit grain supplies.

Under international law, the declaration allows Russian forces to board and search ships suspected of transporting arms, James Kraska, a maritime law expert and one of the author of the Newport Manual of the Law of Naval Warfare, told USNI News on Wednesday.

“Russia has a right to do that under the law of visit and search,” he said.
“They’re entitled to visit ships and board them to see if there are any weapons on board.”

However, if the ships are Ukrainian-flagged, they can be captured as a war prize.

“It doesn’t make them targets,” Kraska said.

As part of the grain deal brokered by Turkey and United Nations, which expired when Russia pulled out Monday, Moscow had the right to inspect ships heading to Ukraine, said Sal Mercogliano, an associate professor at Campbell University.

The concern is if Russia decides to attack ships going to or from Ukraine, Mercogliano said.

“What you’re seeing is an escalation on the Black Sea, and the fear is that if Russia hits ships sailing to Ukraine, what is to prevent Ukraine from hitting ships sailing from Russia?” he said. “And then you have a full-fledged commerce war between Ukraine and Russia targeting largely neutral third world nation ships, sailing carrying food, fuel and fertilizer.”

There is a chance that there could be armed escorts to protect merchant ships, but the question is who would provide them, Mercogliano said. Turkey closed the Bosphorus Strait to any warships from non-Black Sea from entering the Black Sea.