What outcome should we expect from the war in Ukraine after the USA has a new president in the person of Donald Trump. What would the signing of a peace agreement look like today… In front of FACTS, Eng. Alexander Tatsov, who is an international analyst at the Union of Reserve Officers “Atlantic“.
- Mr. Tatsov, what phase has the war in Ukraine reached? The US, particularly through President Biden, has allowed the Ukrainians to use missiles to strike inside Russia. Moscow responded with a new ballistic missile. Who is outplaying whom?
- In this case, we cannot talk about a new phase in the war, but about some new circumstances. President Biden seems to have decided to show character in the sense that he will no longer bow to the nuclear threats of the Kremlin (the nuclear Scarecrow). A decision that some analysts explain as an effort to harm the new President Trump. Otherwise, we can hardly expect any dramatic change in the strategic military situation. Ukraine does not have enough long-range missiles to gain any decisive advantage in military operations. On the other hand, President Putin's move with the new “Oreshnik“ appears to be a mere bluff intended as a formal response to Biden's decision.
- With this escalation, what scenarios do you see as a possible outcome?
- The outcome depends on many different circumstances. From the new American administration, from the grouping around President Putin, last but not least from China's concept of the war (the continuation of which, in principle, is not in its interest), from the strategic situation on the battlefield, etc.. The most a likely scenario is that a temporary truce of some form is reached, and negotiations will be extremely difficult. The reason is the diametrically opposed interests and views of the parties. It seems unlikely that any formal and mutually acceptable peace treaty will be signed. In my opinion, intermediate scenarios of the two mentioned are also unlikely.
- How to view the increasingly close cooperation between Russia and North Korea…
- This cooperation is an expression of the natural interests of both sides to counteract the “collective West”. Moreover, both have authoritarian regimes. Therefore, it is logical to assume that this cooperation will expand and strengthen. North Korea is said to be able to provide Russia with between 1 and 2 million large projectiles per year, as well as tens of thousands of soldiers as cannon fodder. It is believed that Russia, in turn, will provide the North Koreans with new military technologies, and even technologies in the field of nuclear weapons – something that seems completely logical in view of the military strategic situation of Russia at the moment.
- From an expected quick resolution to the war for Moscow, we are now about to enter the third year. What did Russia misjudge?
- We saw a gross mistake by the intelligence and the strategic command in Moscow. And this is a consequence of the "debauchery" spreading in the Russian army. and corruption, leading to the result “tell the superiors what they want to hear“. This phenomenon is also characteristic of the Soviet army, where it was inherited by the Russian imperial army. Objectively speaking, however, the main weakness of the Russian army is in management at the strategic and tactical level and in military planning. The flawed strategy resulted in the war in Ukraine degenerating into a World War I-style positional war (WWW) as the Russian army failed (and was unable) to mount a single successful armored breakthrough. That is why they bet on an old strategy, tested since Soviet times and only possible at the level of the Russian army. It is suffocating the enemy with its own blood, with a huge superiority in weapons and such in personnel, due to the inability of the West to ensure superiority (and even equality) in armaments.
- The new US President Donald Trump has promised to stop the war. What actions should we expect from him?
- The war exposed major flaws in US military planning. It turns out that the US military-industrial complex (the same goes for the European one) is deeply deindustrialized, and there are also deep disproportions in the types of armaments in a conventional war. Therefore, America needs at all costs time to re-industrialize and also to
strengthening the military, which the administrations of Presidents Obama and Biden dealt a major blow with the implementation of leftist and gendered practices and rules…
So from President Trump we can expect urgent action for at least some form of truce in the war.
- The Russian army is advancing into Ukraine with a major offensive, with the aim of taking new territories before Trump takes office. How far is Moscow aiming?
- The period from August to November 2024. became the most successful for the Russian army since the first year of the war, because it managed to capture 300-400 sq. km per month. This happens when there is superiority in manpower and especially in technique. However, the Russian military-industrial complex can no longer give much more to the front. According to a senior NATO representative “… Russia now does not have enough forces for a massive strike, and even if they secure a breakthrough, they will not be able to take advantage of it”. So Moscow's unified goal will be to seize more territory so that it can be used as an argument in future negotiations. With such a chaotic development of the war, the Russians can hardly have a specific goal or date.
- What would the end of the war look like. What will be success for Russia and what for Ukraine?
- We are unlikely to see the end of the war in the legal sense soon. We are most likely to see an armistice similar to that in Korea and Vietnam. And each of the countries (Russia and on the other hand Ukraine and the West) will declare this a success. The war is likely to continue in “frozen” state for a long time, and from time to time it can go into a hot phase. It is not excluded that it will become a prelude to a Great War, given the contradictions in the Pacific region. A situation strongly resembling the prelude to the First World War (1911-1914). In any case, an armistice would give the West a welcome pause that it could use to rebuild the military-industrial complex and industry in general, to restore the moral status of society and the military badly hit by neo-Marxism, and to curb globalization and the Greens policies…