Advance the hypothesis by Zelensky of a "political solution" for Crimea, instead of a "military" one, was certainly a smart move, but it will not bring the end of the war any closer, because the proposal it was not directed at Putin, but to Western allies and internal Ukrainian opinion. The only solution to get out of the fighting could be to propose an armistice to Putin, which by leaving his troops on the conquered ground, would freeze the situation until a solution is found. Perhaps involving the UN, which could administer the areas.
Parla Stefano Silvestri, expert in military strategies, former president of the Iai, and editorial director of the institute's magazine, AffarInternazionali.
Why is Zelensky's position that, by eliminating from the military terrain the thorniest point of any negotiation with the Russians, the Crimea issue, not a revolution?
“Let's say that Zelensky hasn't said anything truly incredible to make us think that we are closer to the end of the war. He simply said that the war can also be concluded diplomatically and that even the Ukrainian claims can be addressed in the same way. Which indicates a willingness to discuss, of course, only that this does not correspond to Putin's position. The Russian president has said several times that he does not want to negotiate with this Ukrainian government, which he calls "Nazi", as we know. And on the other hand, Putin has always considered Crimea Russian, he wants other Ukrainian territories in addition to those he has already occupied. That said, Zelensky was right to introduce the topic. Because he means to start talking about life in Ukraine without war, and it is no coincidence that he has evoked an end to martial law, which blocks all political and civil activity, elections above all. In short, it means starting to talk about democratic normality, a problem that does not interest Putin. In conclusion, the Ukrainian president's speech seemed to me more aimed at his country, at Europe, at the Americans, but not at his enemy. And for this reason, I repeat, it will not put an end to the war."
Didn't Zelensky get to this position because the counteroffensive was not as successful as hoped?
“Of course the slow counter-offensive played a role, but we knew it would go like this. The only acceleration could have occurred by bringing the war into Russian territory, but the Ukrainians know, and we all know, that this is impossible because it would mean spreading the war to all NATO countries. A counteroffensive of small steps is therefore inevitable. Be careful, however: this does not mean that it is not being successful. It only means that Zelensky, since he has not broken through, must prepare to ask for other commitments from the allies, and long-term ones. Hence the speech: he needs to present himself with the papers in order, and therefore he wanted to reassure supporters, inside and outside Ukraine, that the country is ready to return to civilian life, putting an end to martial law, restoring the game democratic and declaring himself willing to dialogue on every point, even the thorniest ones. Taking the initiative to try to direct a debate more favorable to the Ukrainians was a smart move to maintain the benevolence and support of the allies precisely because I believe that Zelensky has no illusions about Putin's desire for peace”.
Can the next meeting with Erdogan unlock anything?
“It could be useful for resuming the grain trade and for some other détente initiative, prisoner exchange, for example. But nothing extraordinary regarding the progress of the war. However, it could be more interesting if the hypothesis of an armistice emerged from the meeting. An armistice, with Russian troops remaining on the territory, could also interest Putin. This is a field of difficult dialogue, both for the Russians and for the Ukrainians, but one solution could be to place the occupied territories under a controlled administration by the United Nations, pending truly democratic referendums. It has been done elsewhere in Europe and around the world. This would mean, however, that not only Ukraine, but also Russia would have to accept the deduction of territory. A completely new situation because it is entirely political and has no impact on the military situation."
The Vatican was dragged into controversy again after the words of the Pope who, in a speech to Russian youth, recalled the deeds of Tsars Peter and Catherine. Francis is pro-Russian, the Ukrainians said. Is that so?
“I haven't read the Pope's speech, but I don't think it is. Of course, the pontiff would like to have better relations with the Orthodox and certainly this war not only has not helped dialogue, but has split their own churches. At the moment there is an ongoing schism between the Ukrainian and Russian patriarchates: the Ukrainians have left Moscow declaring their church autocephalous, obtaining the seal of the patriarchate of Constantinople. And since in Ukraine, like the Orthodox, Catholics are also dying, those of the Greek rite who live in the country, I believe that the Vatican's interest is entirely humanitarian: that is, it is doing the job it is supposed to do."
Let's get to Prigozhin's fate: what do you think about his death?
“It is clear that Putin had an open account with his faithful former collaborator, he felt, and even said so, stabbed in the back. And he could not accept such a betrayal. The answer could be of various kinds. It could have been legal: accuse him, imprison him and perhaps send him to Siberia. But it would not have been easy due to the presence of the militia which would certainly have created public order problems. And it certainly wouldn't have been quick and definitive. True, she waited quite a long time, and even had meetings with him. In short, he gave the impression of uncertainty, as if he had accepted the revolt as a partial dissent. Prigozhin, for his part, tried to give reassurances to the tsar. For example, on the fact that he would no longer bother and that he would only deal with Africa and the Third World. But Putin had been humiliated and in front of the world, it was difficult to stomach, unless he was seriously in trouble. But he proved he wasn't. I think he studied everything at the table. Meanwhile he had to be sure to normalize part of the Wagner militia, to eliminate any possibility of armed revolt. That's why he integrated the militiamen present on Russian and Belarusian territory into the ranks of the army and changed their commanders. Secondly, he had to ensure the loyalty of his army's general staff. Thirdly, he had to deal with the problem of militias control, which traditionally belongs to the GRU, the military sector of the secret services, but which Putin has always wanted to be under the jurisdiction of the FSB, the heir to the KGB. Finally, he had to make sure, most importantly, that Prigozhin's bodyguards were unable to react. Cynically speaking, the operation was successful, because not only Prigozhin was killed, but also his main collaborators. Putin wanted to decapitate the organization and so this makes me think that he wanted to wait for the most favorable moment. Here, then, are the two months that have passed since the mercenary's revolt."
No man, no problem, of Stalinist memory: can we say that Putin has proven to be very strong?
“Not sure, certainly ruthless. Ferocity is an element of strength and this can be seen as a point in his favor. But at the same time he has lost a very useful tool, the mercenary force. The idea of turning the Fellowship into a Foreign Legion is not a good one because it will lose flexibility. The Foreign Legion has the flag of France, therefore of the State, while a Company of Fortune is not identifiable. If his actions are successful, fine; otherwise who knows. And then I see other problems. Wagner is also an economic empire, which maintains itself: who will finance it now? Not to mention that settling matters in this way, getting rid of enemies in a ruthless manner, can have an image problem. Not only in the face of the West which pursues other values, but also in relations with the countries with which Putin seeks to build an anti-Western front. Specifically, the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). Let's not forget that the Kremlin leader was unable to go to South Africa in person because this country, being one of the signatories of the treaty that established the Hague Tribunal, would not have been able to implement the arrest warrant issued against him he. This is to say that all this much vaunted friendship with Russia is not so true, because for these countries only the one with China is truly useful, Russia follows as steward. And in any case it must be said that yes, they are friends of the Russians and Chinese, but more out of controversy towards Western policies than for ideological questions. That is, the world is much less black and white than we are led to believe."
Returning to the military point of view, what is happening on the ground?
“There is slow Ukrainian progress, as we said, and the Russians' difficulty in regaining the initiative is evident. They have been on the defensive and limit themselves to bombing towns and villages taking advantage of the fact that the Ukrainians do not have control of the skies. But now things will change because with the new armaments that are about to arrive, especially with the F16s, they could have this control. Although they will still have limited movement capacity, because, as we know, they cannot attack deep into Russian territory. And, to be honest, even if they could, the Russians would have a great response capability with their anti-aircraft. Ultimately, Putin is aiming for a war of position because, having gained a portion of territory, he is keen to preserve it. And maybe go further, because, let's not forget, he did not conquer all of Donbass”.
Putin then hopes for time.
“We could say that he is his great ally. Because in the meantime he hopes that over time the Ukrainians' friends, the Westerners, will tire of helping them and paying for their weapons. And then he hopes above all for Trump's victory in the USA, who has already said that he will end this war in five minutes once he is elected. He doesn't understand himself like him, but he said it. However, I believe that Putin still has illusions: not only did he miscalculate with the invasion, given that he provoked, as we know, the Western coalition and expanded NATO like no one could have imagined; but the internal economic situation in Russia is becoming more and more delicate, with the ruble continuing to fall and making its people increasingly poor. Of course, the Russians are used to putting up, but up to a certain point, as we know from their history."
Is Putin also hoping for a change of political colors in Europe with the next elections?
“It may well be. But if I were Putin I would rely less on the Europeans. Both because it is difficult for the colors to change completely, and because if the American position remains firm, I believe that Europe's will also remain firm. If, on the other hand, the American position were to crack, it would be a big problem for Europe, because it would be its security that would be endangered, not just that of Ukraine. Whether right or left, I doubt that the choice would be to place ourselves under Putin's protection."
