The war in Ukraine will continue because Russia has not achieved any strategic objective and therefore has no interest in concluding it. Negotiations will also continue, but we shouldn't expect anything decisive at the moment. As for China, let us drop all illusions that he can take sides against Moscow: Xi is not happy with the war in Europe, but in the end, he has more to gain than to lose by being on the side of the Russians.
It doesn't leave much hope, at least in the short term, Stefano Silvestri, military affairs specialist, scientific adviser and former president of the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), with which FIRSTonline takes stock of the situation more than three weeks after the war that Moscow has unleashed against Kiev. To the cold analysis he also adds an element so terrible that he considers it an absurd scenario. And that is that, precisely because Putin was unable to immediately obtain what he wanted, the surrender of the Ukrainians, it cannot be excluded that he may press the famous nuclear button.
The Russian army seems bogged down - is that right? And why?
"Yes, it is. And frankly I don't know if why: perhaps they are waiting for reinforcements before entering the big cities or they have stopped because they want to weaken the Ukrainian resistance even more before the final push. But I have the impression that the pause is mainly due to the fact that the Russian forces don't have large numbers of men compared to the importance of the tasks they have set themselves and the number of opponents. They have occupied the territory, but have not achieved any strategic objectives. They have not conquered Marjupol, nor Odessa, they are one step away from a major victory, of course, but they have not yet succeeded. By the way it is quite surprising that the Russian army has not yet managed to enter Marjupol having forces there encircling the city from all sides.”
Didn't you expect it?
“Actually, I didn't even expect the invasion. Because, beyond the ethical reasons, I believed that the forces deployed by the Russians were insufficient. The attacker must have forces at least four times greater than the attacked; or it must be qualitatively much superior for armaments. In quantity, Russian and Ukrainian men are more or less equal, and the quality of the Russian weapons is not extraordinary.
Will the next ten days be decisive as many say?
“We have to see if Ukraine resists. Sure the Ukrainians are used to fighting. And this is also mysterious. I don't know where some Russian analysts got the idea that Ukrainians are cowardly. They have always fought. And not only the Cossacks, traditionally warriors, who are also Ukrainians. But also all the others. When they were invaded they always fought back with determination and were an important backbone of the Soviet army. Without forgetting that in the communist period a large part of the armaments industry was located in the Ukraine. That is, they are people who know very well how weapons are made and how to use them. It is possible that Putin (nor the rest of the world either) did not expect them to be willing to resist. Perhaps the only surprise was this”.
Zelensky from comedian to warrior chief - this was also a surprise.
“The president had signed up for one type of contract and now he has to fulfill another. He plays him well because he's a good actor. But he can't do anything else. Of course, he could give up. Apart from the fact that he doesn't seem to feel like it and apart from the fact that it doesn't seem very prudent to surrender to Putin, as things stand he cannot do it. Does he surrender his people who go to the streets to die to stop the invader? He could do it, but he would be a traitor. He can only bet on negotiations, if only to end this massacre. But does he believe it? The problem with negotiations is to understand this: are negotiations the central issue or is it war? In my opinion it is the war that drives the negotiations and not the negotiations that condition the war. To understand, if the negotiations are successful it is because the war cannot be won, it will not be because the negotiations have put an end to the conflict. In my opinion, the limitation of these negotiations is that, in the current state of things, I don't know about the Ukrainians, but the Russians certainly hope much more in the battle than in the negotiation. And maybe even the Ukrainians after all.”
Speaking of the negotiation: what do you think of the 15 points that would form the basis of a possible agreement? The spirit seems to be that of Minsk.
“Yes, it looks like the Minsk Protocol, because in the end, beyond the single points, on what can a war like this be concluded? It might be reasonable for the Russians to agree to leave with Crimea and the two small republics, not all of Donbass. Of course, by doing so, Putin would demonstrate that he invaded for nothing, not counting the costs of the damages: who will pay for them? But the other way is to continue until who knows when. A Syrian or Balkan scenario: an endemic war. And beyond other considerations, can Russia afford it? ”
If Putin is satisfied with Crimea and half Donbass, we would have lost not only time, but human lives and devastated cities for nothing.
"Certain. It is true that neither side has done anything to implement the Minsk agreement. But it is equally true that this type of invasion demonstrated that Russia's goal was different. Putin wants if not all of Ukraine, at least half, the Russian-speaking one. And it is probable that he had established it for some time, since the first war, that of 2014 ”.
It only comes out if one of the two gives in, then.
“It becomes difficult for the Russians to give in. No one would criticize the Ukrainians if they surrendered, but Putin is having a hard time. And then the scariest question is: but if he can't win, isn't he doing some even bigger nonsense? And what could it be? Let's take a step back. Putin expected NATO to react, so as to give him an ex post justification for the invasion. To then define another division of influences, like what happened at the 36th parallel with the two Koreas, for example. Or something similar. And yet NATO didn't give him that excuse. And therefore he continues to face only the Ukrainians. Sure, armed by NATO, but it's not the same thing. Then what can he do? Using nuclear power. For the Russians it is not a taboo because the operational doctrine provides for the use of conventional and nuclear weapons indifferently. So Russia, if nothing significant happens on the ground, to end everything, could decide to drop a tactical bomb over an area of resistance of the Ukrainian army, wiping it out. A small bomb, a little smaller than the one exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but of that kind there. Furthermore, the Russians have even more specialized weapons, atomic neutron bombs, which we have not developed, those that only kill living beings and leave structures, buildings and so on standing. And they have one-kiloton or two-kiloton atomic bombs. To be clear, those of Hiroshima were 5/6 kilotons and those of Nagasaki 10. They would do more limited damage than in Japan, but they would still produce their mushroom, with the radioactive fallout. What would happen at this point? Sure, the Ukrainians would surrender, but Putin who dared to use nuclear weapons in Europe would be banned from the international arena, he would be a pariah, a war criminal. And at that point not even Xi could speak to him, only the Korean Kim could. Perhaps".
Not to mention that NATO at that point would be dragged into the intervention.
“Theoretically not, because the fact remains that no NATO country has been attacked. But what would be the popular reaction? Would it make a scandal? Or would fear prevail? Putin could bet on fear. But he could be wrong again. And in any case, when the nuclear taboo is broken, it is difficult not to imagine a subsequent scenario, that of a nuclear war in Europe, because here there are not only American atomic bombs, but also English and French ones. And they can be used to destroy Russian cities, not only Putin can. It's an absurd scenario, I know, but so much foolishness has already been done."
We hope for mediation by China: what do you think?
“China will support Russia, we are under no illusions. And she will support it because it suits her. Because this guarantees the Euro-Asian border. Although she is not happy with this whole operation because she had invested a lot in Ukraine, and she had been welcomed there. And she doesn't even like it because all this will push the Europeans to strengthen themselves militarily by diverting the attention of the Americans from the Old Continent to focus on the Pacific. But the advantage of being on Russia's side is greater than all this, and I believe that Xi will continue to cover for Putin. And therefore, not being above the parties, he cannot even be a mediator".
Who could be the most credible broker?
“Erdogan. He has good relations with both. Israel, which has also been talked about in recent days, doesn't give a damn about Europe, it is only interested in the Middle East and solving the Iran problem. But there are European institutions made for mediation. Like the Osce. So far he hasn't entered the field because Russia is still against it. Which suggests precisely that he wants to continue with the war ”.
What do you think of the increase in military spending in Italy up to 2% of GDP?
"It's right. When Germany rearms, Italy, France and Spain must join to integrate it. We cannot let it do it alone, the Europeans must all go together. And anyway, it's better that she's not the only one with a strong army”.
