The leader of the aggressor country, Russia, Vladimir Putin, is clearly not informed about the real situation on the battlefield. He is in a "warm bath" and consumes only comforting information, apparently distorted. This conclusion can be drawn from his public statements. The perception of the war in Ukraine by the US President Donald Trump, who seems to believe that Russia is winning, may be equally distorted.
However, the reality is such that after a year and half of the offensive, the Russian occupational army has made only modest tactical but no operational successes, let alone any breakthrough. The Kremlin steps up aggressive rhetoric and threatens to seize Sumy, but objectively it will not be able to implement its plan, at least in the foreseeable future, says the co-director of foreign policy programmes, coordinator of international projects of the Razumkov Center, military expert Oleksiy Melnyk in an exclusive interview for OBOZ.UA.
— During a recent meeting that Putin held in Kursk, we heard a joke that Sumy should become part of the Russian Federation. Earlier, the Russian delegation at the Istanbul talks also threatened to seize Sumy in order to create a "security zone." What strategy do you think the enemy may choose?
— Putin is generally infamous for his jokes, but apart from his inner circle, who hang on his every word, few people may find these jokes witty or funny. Of course, this statement about Sumy somewhat echoes with Medinsky's talk. He also joked in Putin's style, saying that if Ukraine does not want to give up four regions now, then they will take six.
There may be several meanings behind this. First of all, it is Russia's brazen boasting, which is not new. But it may also be caused by a problem that has existed since the beginning of the large-scale invasion: a strategic miscalculation of the Russian might.
Putin apparently lives in his "warm bath" of red or blue folders telling him that everything is fine. He has repeatedly demonstrated on camera that he has a distorted idea of the real situation on the frontlines.
If we talk about the seriousness of the threat is for the city of Sumy, specifically from the viewpoint of possible encirclement or occupation, I would say that it exists, but not so urgent as for some frontline cities in the east. Yes, there is a danger, but we definitely cannot say that Russia will be able to capture Sumy in the near future.
— How do you think Trump's open political support for Putin affects this strategy of the enemy?
— One of the paradoxes that is currently being observed is Russia's modest tactical successes, its failure to achieve a strategic breakthrough or at least some operational success. After more than a year and half of the offensive, Russia has not achieved strategic success, there is no operational breakthrough on any section of the front. But what is the paradox? Russia achieves a strategic political and media effect.
When Trump says that Russia is winning, it's because by such tactical steps at the cost of disproportionate losses of personnel and equipment, Russia creates the illusion of its invincibility. These Russian narratives are not only voiced by President Trump, but also heard in other world capitals. From the rhetoric that comes from Trump personally, we can understand that he, as before, supports Putin's narratives that Ukraine has to make concessions, because the longer it lasts, the more Russia occupies, the closer Russia is to victory.
But I am not sure that even his closest circle, which, of course, tries not to argue with the boss, shares such confidence. For example, this is evidenced by the recent statement of Mark Rubio, who said that Russia wants too much. Obviously, it confirms that Russia cannot achieve the result militarily and is trying to bargain for it, resorting to blackmail. So, his milieu has a more adequate idea of the situation than Trump himself.
— According to The Wall Street Journal sources, the talks may continue in Vatican in mid-June. They may involve European leaders, while the US will be represented by Marco Rubio and Keith Kellogg. So we see that the level of Washington's representation is going down. Do you see it as a sign of Trump losing interest? What will happen if the US withdraws from the peace process? Will it be good news for us?
— To date, Trump's deeds, at least since his inauguration, have mostly been in Russia's favour. Mostly, but not all. Because, as Marco Rubio said, the US has not lifted sanctions on Russia. In April, Trump extended the sanctions imposed by the previous administration. And the supply of weapons to Ukraine continues, no matter under what scheme. Trump's actions and rhetoric are largely objectively seen as serving Putin's interests more than the interests of Ukraine or the interests of restoring peace and stopping the bloodshed. The first meeting, which took place in Istanbul, once again confirmed that Putin is not interested in negotiations as such. Nothing new can be expected from his representatives, whom he delegated to Istanbul and who will probably represent Russia at the next negotiations.
We can expect something new from our European partners and the United States. Until Putin is faced with conditions that can seriously convince him that continuing the war is more costly for him than stopping it, these technical representatives of Russia will simply carry out their mission. And their mission is to mark time and try not to irritate Trump.
If we talk about the level of representation in delegations, well, a high-level meeting is always preceded by thorough work of technical experts, guided by the opinions from the level, at which the decision can be made at a personal meeting. We see such efforts of the Ukrainian side. We can follow the chronology of changing the idea of a trade-off by official Kyiv and personally President Zelenskyy, starting with the softening the firm conditions that existed until the end of November last year. Then, Ukraine insisted that any direct talks with Russia might take place only after the withdrawal of its troops. This demand was lifted. Then, this saga about whether there can be a ceasefire or not, and if so, how long it will last.
That is, Ukraine is gradually adapting its position, upon agreement with its European partners. If the US could actively, constructively join this process… I am not saying that they must necessarily be on Ukraine’s side. Of course, they should defend their national interests, which, in our opinion, coincide with the interests of Ukraine. Only when we have a common position, when some of the points of the plan to force Russia to peace are voiced, then we can talk about progress – first at the technical level, and then at the level of the leaders.
Regarding the possible withdrawal of the US from the talks, the big question is whether the US can afford to withdraw from solving European problems. I emphasize: the US as a state, not Trump as the leader of this state. Yes, we see that he can make radical, illogical decisions, but the US has working institutions, and there are those in the government who understand what consequences the US may face in terms of its international standing, regional and global security. Obviously, they will try to dissuade Trump from such a step.
But what if it does happen? Of course, there is nothing good about it. But if Trump, who has taken on the role of the main mediator, continues to try to resolve the conflict through Ukraine's surrender, then probably we'd better do without such a mediator.
Source:
