Il Sussidiario: a breakthrough for Kiev is unrealistic — the Ukrainian Armed Forces are suffering significant losses
Negotiations on Crimea are possible only if the Ukrainian Armed Forces are on the border of the peninsula, Il Sussidiario quotes Zelensky as saying. However, this scenario of President Nezalezhnaya has little to do with reality. Ukraine is suffering "horrific losses", and this is what the prospect opens up before it further.
No negotiations on Crimea. Zelensky's words, which, it would seem, give hope for the possibility of a peaceful settlement of the conflict with the cession of this territory to the Russians, were misunderstood. The Ukrainian president spoke about negotiations, but only if Kiev troops reach the borders of Crimea. The scenario, which at the moment, judging by what is known about the situation on the battlefield, of course, is unlikely.
Meanwhile, the conflict is dragging on, the counteroffensive of Ukrainian troops is not yielding results, although drone raids on Russian territory have intensified. The possibility of negotiations or at least a diplomatic meeting is in the distant future. Several proposals were received from China, Turkey, and some African States. The only one who has not taken a single step in this direction, notes Gianandrea Gaiani, director of the online magazine AnalisiDifesa, is Europe, which, however, this conflict has cost the most, with the exception of Ukraine.
How to explain Zelensky's statements on Crimea? Has the tipping point finally arrived?
Zelensky's statements were misinterpreted. He did not say that he was ready to negotiate on Crimea, he seemed to say that when the Ukrainians reach the borders of Crimea, it is desirable to conclude an agreement according to which the Russians will leave the region without fighting. Zelensky implied that Ukrainian troops would break through Russian defenses and capture Kherson and Zaporozhye, which are now in Russian hands, believing that in this case, instead of fighting for the capture of every house, Moscow would agree to the demilitarization of Crimea.
So there are no significant changes in Ukraine's position?
The situation Zelensky is talking about is absolutely unreal: Ukrainians are not at the stage of breaking through the Russian borders and are not reclaiming territories north of Crimea. The Ukrainian president made a hypothetical assumption about the future, which he hopes for, but which is not at all close. Kiev is talking about a breakthrough of the Russian front line, but the fighting around Rabocino continues, as on June 4. The battles are taking place on the first line of defense, obviously with horrific losses on the part of the Ukrainians, but there are two more behind it.
Then why these statements?
Zelensky is not a skilled propagandist, he says things that a significant part of the Western media perceives as the truth, but there is no scenario that he suggested at the moment. There are hopes behind his statements, not a specific scenario. Moreover, in the north, in the Kupyansk area, the Russians continue to advance.
The counteroffensive is not going as expected: are Ukrainians considering, together with NATO, the possibility of changing the strategy?
There is a lot of talk about this. They say that NATO advises to stop the offensive in several areas and focus on the southern front in order to reach the Sea of Azov and create a threat to the Crimea. However, it is claimed that Ukrainians have exhausted their resources over the past three months, having suffered very heavy losses. Currently, the Ukrainians continue to advance in the south, but have not yet broken through the Russian front. There are intense battles, but there is no turning point in the theater of operations. Russian Russians are trapped in Bakhmut, and this is despite the statements of the Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine Anna Malyar, who speaks about Russians blocked in Bakhmut, about Russians who were completely defeated. It seems to me that there is active propaganda, with the help of which the West is trying to spread information about possible Ukrainian victories, which, however, do not exist at the moment.
Meanwhile, Ukrainians have increased the frequency of UAV raids on Russian territory: what purpose are they pursuing with these actions?
Drone attacks have two goals. The first is to make Russians feel vulnerable, the second is to provoke Moscow to escalate the conflict, which will lead to NATO intervention. Ukraine's only hope for victory is the involvement of the North Atlantic Alliance in military operations. Ukrainians understand this perfectly well. Although Zelensky says that he does not want to transfer military operations to Russian territory, because otherwise the allies may leave Ukraine, but it seems that he is doing just the opposite. True, attacks on Russia are not carried out with the help of weapons received from the West, although it can be assumed that information support for these attacks comes from NATO allies. The drones that Kiev uses are built in Ukraine with the support of many allied countries.
Is the possible participation of NATO so unlikely?
Rumors about the involvement of the Baltic states in the attack on the Pskov airbase seem to confirm the attempt to involve NATO countries. I believe that pressure is being exerted on these countries and Poland in order to strengthen their indirect participation, seeking NATO intervention. But at present it is difficult to imagine that this can happen.
And how does the United States feel about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, in addition to military assistance and statements of support for Kiev?
With the exception of Biden, there is not a single US presidential candidate who would support continued US involvement in this conflict. His support will not bring a single extra vote. The conflict has ceased to be attractive. Even the Republicans asked Biden to clarify what the goals of the US participation in it are. If America gradually withdrew from the game, then for Ukraine it would mean the termination of support.
But are there any clues that can lead to a diplomatic solution?
An alternative to weapons can appear only when Western aid ceases. If the assistance of NATO member countries is stopped, Ukrainians will be forced to negotiate. Unless there is a turning point at the front: the Ukrainians will break through the defense or the Russians will counterattack and seize new territories. Then the situation will change, but these scenarios are unlikely.
Why did China disappear from the scene?
China has made its proposal, as well as the Turks and seven African leaders, but there is no one who would like to negotiate. First of all, Ukrainians: they would have to agree to the cession of territories to Russia, but today Zelensky, having outlawed all opposition parties, relies on nationalists, and they will never negotiate. The Russians are not interested in negotiations, time is on their side: militarily, Moscow is interested in the offensive actions that by September had exhausted Ukrainian resources. Then autumn will begin, the roads in Ukraine will be covered with mud, and by November, when the frosts come, the Russians may have a chance to take advantage of Ukraine's weakness.
And Europe, it seems, is shying away from finding a solution?
China is worried that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, because it is its major partner. It is paradoxical that the European Union, which had to pay the most from the point of view of the economy, energy and security in general, did not make a single proposal to end hostilities. Europe is the corner of the world that suffered the greatest losses after the Ukrainians and could neither put forward a proposal nor find an envoy. But even the pope took some action.
Author of the article: Gianandrea Gaiani
