DW: Why do you think Donald Trump gave Russian President Putin a 50-day deadline to end the war - otherwise, even tougher sanctions will be imposed? What do you think of this decision?
M. Reisner: The European media is full of euphoria: there is already talk of a turnaround that will bring positive consequences for Ukraine. However, in my opinion, the framework is too vague, and the decision is not formulated clearly enough. It is obvious that the 50-day deadline is very long. Putin and Trump spoke on the phone in early July, and now, ten days later, Trump is threatening sanctions and at the same time giving Putin 50 days. This makes a total of 60 days, and as we know from the conversation between the two presidents, Putin told Trump that the situation will escalate in the next 60 days.
DW: Does this mean that Trump is in effect giving Putin permission to escalate, to continue the killings?
M. Reisner: That's how it turns out. Trump promised the delivery of only defensive weapons systems. As for offensive weapons, there is no decision, only a statement that he would consider this issue. In my opinion, this 50-day period is very long - a lot can happen in that time. From Russia's point of view, it will include at least three to five powerful air strikes, perhaps even with a greater frequency than in recent days.
The next step is the delivery of weapons systems. There is still some ambiguity in Trump's statement: what do these 17 Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems mean - 17 Patriot batteries or 17 launchers? More importantly, this is defensive armament. It helps Ukraine defend itself from Russian strategic air attacks with drones, missiles and shells. However, there is also the question of offensive systems, such as additional cruise missiles or surface-to-surface missiles. Ukraine must also be able to exert pressure, at least on its territory occupied by Russia. This is possible only with sufficiently accurate weapons systems with a long range.
"The summer offensive of the Russian army is in full swing"
DW: You mentioned that Russia could launch large-scale air strikes against Ukraine. What does this mean for the front line and where do you see the possible culmination of the Russian summer offensive?
M. Reisner: The situation is very serious - we see that the Russian army is already almost in the midst of its summer offensive. This offensive has a completely different goal compared to the expectations of most observers: it is not a maneuver or an offensive to seize more territory, but rather an offensive aimed at the war of attrition waged by the Russians.
Since last year, the initiative has been in the hands of Russia. The front can be conditionally divided into three sectors: northern - between Sumy and Kharkov, central - from Kupyansk to Pokrovsk, and southern - from Zaporozhye to Kherson. We see that the Russian military is trying mainly to limit the actions of the Ukrainian army in the north near Sumy and in the south between Kherson and Zaporizhia, to stretch them over a long distance so that the center of Russian efforts, still focused on Donbas, can seize more and more territories. And here we see an escalation in the area of Pokrovsk and Konstantinovka. In fact, there we observe a double "cauldron" for the Ukrainians (encirclement from all sides of military units that continue to resist) - the Russians managed to break through between the two cities, tear apart Ukrainian defensive positions, advance even further and cut off important supply lines, which is especially important. In the Kursk region, we have already seen that if this happens, if the Russians really manage to cut off the supply lines, the cities usually fall.
DW: Is help coming from the US or is it coming too late to change anything in these 60 or 50 days?
M. Reisner: I would be cautious here. In recent years, we have seen that Ukraine has managed to get out of hopeless situations. It is true that the supply of weapons was an important factor, and above all the provision of intelligence - this should not be forgotten. But it must be clearly understood that individual weapons systems can also put enormous pressure on the Russian side. For example, long-range cruise missiles. An air campaign with cruise missiles can lead to a result that shows that the Russian offensive has been stopped or is in retreat.
I will give a specific example: recently, Ukraine successfully attacked the command post of the 155th Russian naval brigade in the direction of Sumy. The deputy commander of the fleet and high-ranking officers were killed - the entire command of the brigade. It immediately became clear that due to the loss of command, Ukrainian counterattacks developed and the Ukrainian side was able to regain important positions. And if the same thing happens in Donbass? From my point of view, this is a combination of defensive and offensive weapons that could allow Ukraine to act from a position of strength or at least on an equal footing at the next negotiations in Istanbul, so as not to accept an imposed peace.
How far can the US go
DV: According to American media, Donald Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky why attacks were not being carried out on Moscow and St. Petersburg, to which Zelensky replied that if the appropriate weapons were available, attacks would be possible there as well. Do you think that a turn in Trump's behavior is possible in this regard?
M. Reisner: And on this issue I am rather cautious, because the Trump administration is currently in the same situation as the Biden administration, when there were two cases of sharp escalation. One was in the fall of 2022, when the Russian side was considering whether to use tactical nuclear weapons because it was losing. Today we know that at that time the Biden administration was desperately trying to act as a backstage mediator to avoid this. The second dramatic situation was at the end of the Biden administration, when Ukraine was allowed to use weapons with a longer range in the Kursk region. Then Russia responded by using the medium-range missile "Oreshnik".
However, Ukraine is already attacking Moscow with its own forces - with weapons systems that it itself produces. We are already seeing drones reaching far beyond Moscow, which is why temporary closures of Russian airports are being imposed. I think this kind of escalation is the result of very balanced risk management, and I am still not sure whether the US will really go that far, because Russia’s response could be tough.
Author: Roman Goncharenko