Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky believes that the recovery of Kherson is a historic development. He said his troops entered the city after Russia announced its withdrawal.
The capital, Kyiv, saw the liberation of the city, just two months after Russia announced its annexation of the region. Celebrations chanted slogans in support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the armed forces that have achieved successive victories on the front lines.
To get a clearer picture of what happened in Kherson from a military perspective, Al Jazeera interviewed Professor Robert Pearson, professor of international relations at West Point, the most prestigious military academy in the United States.
The scholar focuses on foreign and domestic policy in Russia and the former Soviet republics, and is about to publish his new book, Russia’s twenty-first-century grand strategy.
Pierson holds a Ph.D. from Yale University and a master’s degree from Stanford University and is a non-resident fellow at the Modern War Institute.
The following is the original text of the interview with Professor Pearson. Al Jazeera reminded that the views expressed in it only represent the personal views of the professor and do not represent any official position of the Department of Defense or the US government.
- How do you explain Russia’s withdrawal a few weeks ago from the city of Kherson, which Putin claims is “Russian territory”?
For Moscow, Russia’s withdrawal from Kherson is a major military and political setback. Furthermore, since this decision was announced earlier, it does not, on the face of it, look like a catastrophic withdrawal from the Kharkiv region. There are only signs that the decision was not anticipated by the remaining Russian forces in Kherson, and the withdrawal was done in a very chaotic fashion.
So this again confirms what we’ve seen recently, that the Russian military is still beset by poor leadership, equipment, logistics and morale. And with Russia’s ability to continue waging war in Ukraine diminished, the move from Kherson could exacerbate all of this.
- Can you put this withdrawal in the broader context of the Russia-Ukraine war?
Just a few weeks ago, Russia announced that it would bring these dependent territories under its sovereignty, saying it would never cede them to Ukraine. The announcement led to fears that Putin would use strategic nuclear weapons in Ukraine to defend those territories. At the same time, this has in turn sparked calls for Ukrainian restraint, a reduction in Western arms shipments and a push for talks with Russia.
If nothing else, the decision to withdraw troops from Kherson shows that Putin has been acting rationally and will not risk the use of nuclear weapons with catastrophic consequences. Moreover, this move by Russia shows that Putin is not ready to defend these dependent territories of Russia as he might defend “real” Russian territory.
And it should reassure those worried about the use of nuclear weapons and those who want to see Ukraine continue to reclaim land illegally annexed by Russia.
- What do you think of the recent Russian attacks on civilian areas in Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv?
First of all, I must stress that Russia’s attack on civilian targets in Ukraine is a clear violation of international law, for which Russia must be held accountable.
Second, these attacks are unlikely to have any significant military impact, as these targets do not provide any strategic military value. Furthermore, these attacks cannot deter or intimidate Ukrainians. Because no matter how Russia escalates its level of attack, the Ukrainians will continue to fight and resist.
But the attack also showed us that the Kerch Bridge in Crimea is of great symbolic importance to Putin. Because these attacks can be described as an emotional response, an act of revenge for the bombing of the bridge. In addition, Moscow’s retaliatory response would also help mitigate criticism from ultranationalists in Russia. These men have been preaching this brutal tactic for months.
But it is unlikely to appease Russia’s pro-war extremists for long. Because as the Ukrainians succeed again on the battlefield, their criticism will come back.
- How did the war situation turn and lead to this decisive moment?
All the latest developments show that Putin has realized that Russia is losing the war. He and his generals were unable to achieve military victories on the battlefield, which is why they wreak havoc on civilians.
In other words, with every advance Ukraine pushes east and south, Russia seems to be getting more desperate. And if Ukraine achieves more victories in the coming weeks and months, its attacks could intensify. This is why the international community must maintain maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia, while continuing to support Ukraine’s ability to defend itself.
- Will the latest developments trigger a nuclear response from Russia?
The chances of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine remain slim. Because it would provide limited military value, and it would isolate Russia from its international partners (and those trying to remain neutral). In addition, the use of nuclear weapons could threaten Russia’s political stability and possibly even Putin’s control of the country.
In addition, the United States and other NATO members have privately told Russia that if it used nuclear weapons, Russia would face catastrophic consequences.
- How will the US and NATO respond to a Russian nuclear attack, even if it is strategic and limited to targets within Ukraine?
It should be emphasized that this is only personal speculation, not the official policy of the US government. But I want the United States and its allies to lift all restrictions on the types of weapons they can supply to Ukraine.
Until now, we have been reluctant to provide long-range weapons systems, fighter jets, main battle tanks and other heavy weapons for fear that fueling an escalation of the battle could anger Russia. But if Russia uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, then there is no reason to back down.
However, I am still not sure whether the United States and its NATO allies will directly strike Russian military targets in Ukraine. Some have speculated that direct engagement in combat might be an option under consideration. However, it also risks extending the conflict beyond Ukraine into a direct war between Russia and NATO. However, both parties may want to avoid this from happening.
- What are the main strategic implications of Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine for NATO?
NATO’s latest Strategic Vision (2022) has recognized that the alliance needs to expand its strategic thinking beyond Europe and North America to meet growing challenges from China in the Indo-Pacific.
Although Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has strengthened NATO’s resolve and reinvigorated it as a cornerstone of strategic stability. But at the same time, it has prevented the alliance from focusing on longer-term challenges outside the region.
- Do you think Putin will withdraw from other Ukrainian lands like Donbass and Crimea?
Putin will not be willing to give anything back to Ukraine. So in order to retake the territory, the Ukrainians had to fight for it meter by meter.
If the Russian military continues to underperform as it has done recently, Ukraine could eventually retake the Donbass. But Crimea is more logistically challenging. And Russia may be willing to pay a higher price for Crimea’s defense, based on Putin’s emotional reaction to the Kerch Bridge attack and previous Ukrainian bombings on the peninsula. And if his control of Crimea is threatened, he could escalate his actions to higher levels of violence.
- After Russia’s withdrawal from Kherson, what do you expect to see in the months and years to come in this war?
I expect the war will continue to burn slowly for a long time to come. Ukraine’s recent success has been impressive and will likely continue to do so in the coming months. But if you look at the map, it is clear that there are still many territories occupied by Russia that have not yet been liberated. Then it will be a slow put-in process.
There is no reason for Ukraine to stop fighting until the country is fully liberated. And President Putin is not interested in negotiating an end to the war “and never will”.
Therefore, the two countries will continue to fight until one of the two parties achieves its military and political goals. I believe Ukraine will win in the end, but it may take a few years.
- So how and when will this war end?
It is very difficult to predict this because there are so many unknowns in the military and political realms that any prediction is just a guess. But those looking for clear evidence of the outcome and end of the war should be looking for evidence of infighting among the Russians. Clearly, the war was not popular with most Russian elites, with the exception of pro-war ultranationalists.
With no other choice, most of them have so far supported the war. But continued defeat in Ukraine and at home could lead to serious rifts within the ruling elite, forcing Putin to change his war goals.
It is too early to tell whether such a split will occur. But this is something we must pay attention to if we are to watch for signs of the end of the war.
- What are the main lessons for those trying to understand the nature of current and future warfare?
At the start of the war, many observers believed that Russia would quickly dominate due to its enormous advantage in the size of its military and the quality of its weapons. But Ukraine has shown us that, while quantity matters, the quality of troops matters more. Before the actual combat test, this is difficult to judge.
Russia’s stumbled mobilization shows that it will continue to send more conscripts to the war.
But the quality of these teams will be poor and will only get worse. Here, we must remember a strategically important principle, the necessity of “training in peacetime, fighting in wartime”.