https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/ukraine-d...&_x_tr_sl=auto

Ukraine must face tough decisions this year. The planned offensive will hardly run as successful and easy as it is described to the media. The losses of the ukrainian army are so high that they too must now force untrained "novices" into the trenches, even push special commandos and well-trained specialists into the trenches were they get mauled and are no longer available for that offensive. The West shows little real interest to see a clear victory by Ukraine, and its policy of delivering material reflects that: too much to die, too little to live. The war of attrition in the trenches works for Russia, and against Ukraine.

The Ukrainians must face the fact that the outcome of the war is not in their hands, despite all propaganda and heroic perseverance slogans. Sad, but fact.

I dare to predict that if this offensive that is rumoured fails to deliver big success, then that was it for Ukraine, because then the West's interest in supporting Ukraine further will grow in limitations and inhibitions. And that offensive will only be successful at further horrendous costs for the Ukrainians, most likely. They will suffer much more losses than the Russian defenders of occupied territories, like in almost every attacker-versus-defender scenario. Almost always the attacker must bear much higher losses than the entrenched defenders. Also, Biden will find it incraiongly difficult to push fzrtehr defence support through. And three quarter of the Republicans' followers are with either Trump or deSantis who both share the unwillingness to support Ukraine at all.

Ukraine's population has halved within the past 30 years. Once again.

Its being reported by investigative networks that huge quantities of T-55s get transported to the West. The idea behind this can only be that they will cause problems for Ukraine by their sheer numbers, and that plenty of ammunition for these tanks is still available. They are not fit to compete with modern Western tanks, but used as mobile cannons in dug in defensive positions for infantry fights nevertheless turns them into something the Ukrainians must fight down one by one. The Russian doctrin always based on defeating western armies by overwhelming numbers, not by quality. And it forces Ukrainians to spend what they are running very low on: ammunition of all sorts.

Medvedev has jumped at the opportunity of speaking in defence of his master so no surprises there.

Russian forces may be deploying T-54/55 tanks from long-term storage to Ukraine to compensate for significant armored vehicle losses. The Georgia-based open-source Conflict Intelligence Team research group reported on March 22 that Russian forces transported a train loaded with T-54/55 tanks from Primorsky Krai towards western Russia, and social media sources speculated that Russian forces may deploy them to Ukraine.[22] Dutch open-source group Oryx assessed as of March 22 that Russian forces have lost at least 57 T-90, 448 T-80, 1,025 T-72, 53 T-64, and 73 T-62 tanks in highly attritional fighting in Ukraine.[23] Russian armored vehicle losses are currently constraining the Russian military’s ability to conduct effective mechanized maneuver warfare in stalling offensives in Ukraine, and Russian forces may be deploying T-54/55 tanks from storage to Ukraine to augment these offensive operations and prepare for anticipated mechanized Ukrainian counteroffensives. The Soviet Union produced tens of thousands of T-54/55 tanks after the Second World War, and the Russian military may be turning to extensive Soviet reserves of these tanks to solve its significant armored vehicle shortages. The Russian military may also be deciding to field the tanks because parts to repair the T-54/55 tanks are abundantly available and substantially cheaper. T-54/55 tanks lack the armor capabilities of more modern armored equipment, however, and originally carried a smaller main gun, although the Russian military may have modernized some vehicles. The Russian military will likely experience greater numbers of casualties by fielding these older tank systems in Ukraine. The deployment of inferior equipment to replenish the Russian military's ability to conduct mechanized maneuver warfare may prompt a further degradation of Russian manpower in Ukraine. Russian forces are unlikely to achieve preferable resource attrition rates on the grounds that T-54/55 are cheaper than anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) ammunition, as some have argued—each tank loss is the loss of a tank crew as well as the tank, after all, and it is not clear how effective these tanks will be against Ukrainian armored vehicles, whereas they are highly vulnerable to many anti-tank systems available to Ukraine, not all of which are expensive. https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...-march-22-2023

As of 22 March, "all units of the occupying army deployed in the settlement of Nova Kakhovka in Kherson Oblast have left the town".

As the General Staff states, this was preceded by searches in the houses of the local population with the aim of looting. The occupiers "confiscated" a large quantity of household appliances and electronic devices, jewellery, clothes and mobile phones.

In a number of other settlements in the temporarily occupied left-bank part of Kherson Oblast, the occupiers have begun searching for civilians with a pro-Ukraine stance. For this, they are using the lists of the participants of the Anti-Terrorist Operation (the operation conducted in the east of Ukraine in 2014-2015 – ed.), retired members of the military and persons who served in law enforcement agencies of Ukraine.

The General Staff also added that the occupiers are conducting defensive operations on the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia fronts. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/03/23/7394796/

Mmmh could this "be" the result of Bakhmut goal not meet like Putin wanted to happen "The Donbas by March 31"

Recent statements by U.S. Secretary of State Blinken indicate that Washington is backing away from its outwardly tough stance and is willing to accept negotiations on border concessions to Russia. A reconquest of Crimea no longer seems to be seen as a realistic goal in Washington, if it ever was. Blinken did artfully emphasize that the Ukrainians would have the last word, but these are just platitudes and it is well understood who will ultimately call the shots if Ukraine is, for better or worse, dependent on arms supplies from America and can close up store and war if Washington orders a further shortage of such supplies. Metaphorically spoken, Blinken demonstratively showed Selenski the watch on his wrist and tapped it with his finger. "Your time is running out, so better get a move on or comply," that means.

The tide is shifting more and more against Ukraine.

I said already at the beginning of the war that Washington's interest is not necessarily a victory of the Ukraine, but to maximise costs and losses for Russia to weaken it, even if these are at the Ukraine's expense - and that goal has been achieved. Russia's losses are huge, and its economical costs will stigmatize it for a full generation, if not longer.

I get following from reading your post.

USA is turning their interest/focus from Europe to ASIA/China. USA is going to let Europe handle the problems in their backyard by them self, more or less.

Markus

Increasingly so, yes.

A few of us have said as much from the outset of hostilities.

The despot is becoming increasingly desperate.