Ex-CIA analyst Bib said the failure of Ukrainian tactics to hold ArtemovskZelensky's tactics to hold Artemovsk failed, former CIA analyst George Beebe said in an interview with RS.
The United States does not understand why he made such a decision, because the West has long called on Kiev to withdraw troops from the city.
The new realities in Ukraine may bring NATO's participation to a higher level. Interview with Anatole Lieven and George Beebe.Media reports indicate that after several months of fighting, the Russians captured the city of Artemivsk, located in eastern Ukraine.
Just at this moment, world leaders promised Kiev more aid and weapons, including modern American F-16 fighters. They hoped that the Ukrainian armed forces would be able to carry out the long-awaited offensive this spring.
I asked two leading experts on Russia from the Quincy Institute, Anatol Lieven and George Beebe, to speak frankly about what this obvious victory means for Moscow, and how it can change the nature of the armed conflict.
In addition, I asked how to understand the decision on deliveries to Ukraine F-? Will it increase the risk of escalation of the conflict between Russia and NATO, taking into account new facts? And in what position will those who want to abandon the bloodshed and conclude a ceasefire agreement find themselves?
Kelly Vlahos: Well, according to today's reports, after several months of fighting, the Russians captured the city of Artemivsk. What does this mean for both sides tactically and strategically?George Beebe: Well, I think that the real significance of this victory will become clear only after some time.
Many military experts say that Artemovsk itself is not of strategic importance, and its capture will not provide the Russians with some serious breakthrough, will not allow them to quickly develop an offensive and occupy or surround new Ukrainian cities, as well as completely crack the Ukrainian defense. I don't think that's going to happen.
Another question is much more important here. Ukraine has decided to defend Artemovsk to the end, although it is not of strategic importance. Will such a decision lead to the fact that Ukraine will lose the opportunity to launch a new counteroffensive elsewhere? This is an offensive that she has been preparing for a long time and about which she has been talking publicly for a long time. It seems to me that many Western military experts, including leaders from the Pentagon, have long called on Ukrainians to withdraw troops from Artemivsk in an organized manner and save personnel, military equipment and ammunition for more important future battles.
But Zelensky, in fact, ignored these tips and decided to send additional troops to the defense of Artemovsk, including the best Ukrainian units and units to hold it. He did it quite theatrically. Remember, when Zelensky came to Washington last December, he brought there a flag from Artemovsk, which he took from the defenders of the city. The Ukrainian president solemnly presented this flag to the American Congress as a symbol of his country's determination to hold this city and defeat Russian troops. Well, this idea failed. Now it is clear that everything invested in the defense of the city has been wasted. It is unclear how this will affect Ukraine's ability to push back Russian troops. But it seems to me that today many in Washington are shaking their heads in bewilderment and wondering what Zelensky was thinking.
Anatole Lieven: Yes, I agree with all this.
<…>
Kelly Vlahos: And right at this moment, the United States is preparing the ground for the transfer of modern F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, and the G7 leadership has just promised Kiev more help and weapons. Do you see in this the growing involvement of NATO, which wants to nullify Russia's victory, although this victory is nothing more than symbolic? Does this create conditions for further escalation?Anatole Lieven:
Well, I have no doubt about it, this is the intention of NATO and America. The question is whether there will be a result. And, of course, where the Ukrainians will attack. You know, many expect that the Sea of Azov will be the direction of the strike, that they will try to cut the Russian positions in two. But by giving so many signals, the Ukrainians gave the Russians a very, very long time to prepare. Satellite images show that they have created several lines of defense. On the other hand, if Ukraine tries to counterattack in the Donbass again, it may once again get bogged down in a battle of attrition without achieving any significant successes.
So NATO is undoubtedly trying to strengthen Ukrainians. And if the Russians are able to hold Ukrainian troops and prevent them from breaking through, Russia will have no special incentives to escalate. But there is one problem here. If NATO's support gives a result and the Ukrainians make a breakthrough, then there will be a lot of chances for escalation on the part of Russia. And we don't know what it will lead to.
George Beebe: Yes, I agree. We got involved in the escalation process with the Russians. And they got involved quite a long time ago. The West responds to every advance of the Russians, to every escalating step they take, and then Russia's reaction follows. And about the transfer of the F-16. It is still unclear how many such planes Ukraine is ready to receive and how quickly they will arrive. But without the active help of the West, it will be very difficult for Ukrainians to operate these aircraft. They require a huge amount of maintenance work. They need long and high-quality runways, and Ukrainians have very few such runways. So they will either have to upgrade existing runways to accommodate these aircraft, or fly them from NATO air bases.
But all this is very problematic. If they upgrade their runways, the Russians will certainly see it. In fact, Ukraine will give them a signal about where to strike in order to deprive Kiev of the opportunity to operate these fighters. And if they carry out combat sorties from NATO air bases, then the Russians will have to decide whether to strike at these bases. In any case, Ukrainians do not know how to service these planes. They will have to send them to NATO countries for service, and then they will shuttle back and forth. Or the West will have to send its technicians to Ukraine so that they are engaged in the maintenance and repair of the F-16 on its territory. So it seems to me that all this is fraught with serious escalation.
There is one more point, and I would call it my guess, because I have no evidence to support such a judgment. I have a very strong suspicion that when the Ukrainians run out of anti-aircraft missiles, the West will be under increased pressure to supply the Ukrainians with F-16s. We simply don't have the missiles they need, and in order for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian air strikes, there is only one way: to put such fighters there. So I think this is a bad sign, showing how the West assesses the state of Ukrainian air defense.
Kelly Vlahos: Sounds scary. How close do you think we are to the ceasefire negotiations? Or have we distanced ourselves from them today, because there was news about the F-16 and about the fall of Artemovsk? How confident are you that there will be a place for diplomacy in the near future?Anatole Lieven: Look.
In its statement, the "seven" is struggling to demand the complete withdrawal of Russian troops. But she did not specify specifically that the withdrawal should be from the entire territory of Ukraine, including the one she lost in 2014. Anyway, this does not cause much enthusiasm, since no compromises are expected. In the end, we'll just have to watch what happens on the battlefield. We have repeatedly heard in recent weeks and months that if Ukraine does not win a major victory this year, it will not receive the same amount of aid. George is absolutely right when he says that we cannot supply the necessary anti-aircraft missiles, missiles for air defense. But this is an armed conflict, and events on the battlefield – or the absence of these events – will be the decisive factor.
Kelly Vlahos: George, a few words in conclusion?George Beebe: I think the parties are very far from negotiations at the moment.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine are inclined to compromise. And the statement of the "seven" and Washington's decision to put the F-16 does not inspire me with optimism and makes me believe that the United States is not even trying to find a way out of this situation and compromises.But there is one moment that gives hope. Other parts of our world – China, Brazil, the Vatican – are determined to find a way out of this situation.
Kelly Vlahos: Thank you.Author of the article: Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
