РУССКИЙ
10:40 17.11.2024 •
Stephen Bryen.
Photo: YouTube
An interview of Stephen Bryen, a former US Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, for Roberto Vivaldelli from InsideOver, a popular Italian online news channel and published on November 14.
Question: Jake Sullivan recently announced that President Biden plans to request additional funding from Congress for Ukraine. How would you interpret this decision at this point?
Stephen Bryen: In the United States we would call Biden’s request for more Ukraine funding a “Hail Mary Pass” (a term used in American football). It means he is making the request to show his solidarity with Ukraine and to try and squeeze the Republicans to somehow support Ukraine in future. My own opinion is that Congress will not take up the Biden proposal, instead waiting for Trump to take office. I don’t think Biden believes the measure has any chance. Conditions have changed since the last, massive supplemental for Ukraine. Huge expenditures have not improved Ukraine’s situation, in fact the Russians continue to make significant gains against Ukraine’s army and continue to devastate the Ukrainian critical infrastructure, especially the power grid. If the war continues, Ukraine could become non-recoverable in terms of infrastructure, and the Ukrainians who left the country won’t come back to a wasteland.
Question: In your view, what should we expect from a Trump administration concerning Ukraine? Do you think there’s a realistic prospect of U.S.-Russia dialogue to end the war?
Stephen Bryen: A lot depends on the behavior of the Russian leader. I think Trump wants to negotiate with Putin, but Putin, at least so far, wants to win the war in Ukraine, or nearly so, before he engages with Trump. There are far more important issues than Ukraine, namely the future of NATO, the disposition of nuclear forces, and how to reduce the threat signature between Europe (including the USA) and Russia. Putin wants to speak with Trump about all these topics, and much more. Trump will also have to think about the future US role in Europe, and the danger of a wider conflict. We must wait and see who makes contact first. My sense it will be Trump once he has his team in place and has discussed the strategic situation fully.
Question: What might Russia's demands be in such negotiations?
Stephen Bryen: Russia has a long list of what it wants regarding Ukraine. To begin with, Russia is seeking a friendly Ukraine without any connection to NATO. Some of Trump’s allies, such as the America First Policy Institute, argue for a 20 year pause before Ukraine can join NATO. This is a non-starter because the Russians want NATO out of Ukraine altogether, now and in future. I don’t think Russia is prepared to negotiate anything less, so long as they are winning the war.
Russia also wants Ukraine to be demilitarized. While there is room for compromise, it seems Russia wants to foreclose any future military conflict in Ukraine.
Russia wants to end of Ukrainian persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, the attempt at eradicating Russian culture and language on the territory of Ukraine, and overall, the treatment of Russian speaking people in Ukraine. This will require rescinding Ukrainian laws and regulations.
How much the Russians can get depends on two factors: progress on the battlefield and the political scene in Kiev. The more Russia rolls up Ukraine’s army, the stronger its position in negotiations becomes.
In respect to Kiev and its government, the future is very uncertain. It is all important who the Ukrainian interlocutor is, because it is unlikely that it will be a Zelensky-led government. It may be only a matter of weeks, or a few months, before the Zelensky government collapses because of the battlefield situation.
The US State Department, reportedly, is working on a plan for elections in Ukraine. This seems to me to be an impossible “ask” since putting in place a mechanism for elections is a formidable challenge and will take too long to work. In chaotic conditions, different rivals will try and seize key positions, including the Presidency, or Ukraine could resort to a military leadership, perhaps by bringing General Zaluzhnyi back as some sort of “supreme commander.” Alternatively, the Russians could put their own candidate in control, creating a temporary government in exile and then moving it to Kiev. All of that is in the future, but the future is rapidly creeping up in Ukraine.
Question: According to the Telegraph, Trump’s peace plan may involve deploying European troops in a buffer zone along the current front lines. What are your thoughts on this approach?
Stephen Bryen: I have seen this idea floated here in the US. On the one hand it rightly understands that no Trump advisor will allow US troops to be in Ukraine, even as peacekeepers. Beyond that observation, the idea of putting European troops on the ground in Ukraine will not be acceptable to Russia, which is not fighting to put NATO forces on any territory near its borders or its army.
The truth is the idea of any peacekeeping force from outside in Ukraine presumes that the outcome of the war is a kind of stalemate. That applies equally to the notion of a “buffer zone,” which I do not see happening.
It could be, but it is rather unlikely, that Ukraine could be partitioned. There is a lot of talk about Poland taking over western Ukraine (some of which the Poles and Hungarians once occupied), but I think this is just talk at present. Why would the Russians agree to give up half of Ukrainian territory? To reward Poland for supplying Ukraine with weapons and acting as the supply agency for NATO?
Question: On the battlefield, reports indicate that Russia has launched a counteroffensive around Kursk, and in the Donbas region, Kiev appears to be under significant pressure. Could you share your perspective on the current situation?
Stephen Bryen: In Kursk the Ukrainians are using some of their best units and most modern equipment but are slowly being pushed back. I don’t know what Putin’s desired timetable is on completing operations in Kursk, but I doubt he will get into a negotiation until all Russian territory is reclaimed. Does that mean committing 50 to 100 thousand additional troops? Maybe, it cannot be ruled out. Tactically, from what we can see, the Russians are relying heavily on aviation to destroy Ukraine’s reserves and supplies heading for Kursk and minimizing, to the degree possible, Russian casualties.
Zaphorize is another matter. If the Russian war aim is to trap Ukraine’s army in a pincer (what they call a cauldron), then Zaphorize would be the southern flank of a pincer. The more northerly flank will develop once key towns, like Chasiv Yar, are taken and the Russian army can form up a northerly flank for the pincer to develop. This would represent a drive toward the Dnieper River and with it the destruction of Ukraine’s army as a fighting force. Whether this can happen is anyone’s guess, but Zelensky’s insistence holding onto Kursk as a “bargaining chip” is depriving Ukraine of an adequate force to hold the line in Donetsk, especially southern Donetsk.
Incidentally, the plan for the Kursk operation was cooked up by the British, but it did not contemplate a stalled operation and failure to reach key objectives, particularly the Kursk nuclear power plant. Ukrainian casualties in this operation are now running at over 30,000 and these are losses, among elite units, Ukraine can’t afford.
Question: Lastly, if a Trump administration decides to end U.S. funding for Kiev, what do you think Europe’s options would be? Would Europe be capable of shouldering the financial and military costs alone, without U.S. support?
Stephen Bryen: If the US stops supporting Ukraine, the war is over. Europe will not step in to replace the US for many reasons. Firstly, Europe does not have weapons that can replace American supplies. Secondly, Europe does not have finance other than seized Russian funds. Thirdly, Europe’s politics are changing. The collapse of Germany’s government coalition is the handwriting on the wall for Europe. The British are happy to keep demanding more support for Ukraine, but the British have no money and no army either.
Beyond the above arguments, which are obvious, is the fact that the Ukraine war would never have happened had the United States and US-led NATO stayed out of Ukraine in the first place. Underlying this was the NATO theory of continued expansion, that includes much more than Ukraine and includes all of Russia’s former empire. If NATO is defeated in Ukraine, as seems likely, NATO will need to revert to being a defensive alliance, instead of fashioning itself as an expansion alliance. There is no longer a military or economic basis for NATO’s expansion, and it brings a danger of general war which is not survivable for Europe.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
