WASHINGTON -
As developments related to Russia's war on Ukraine accelerate on several fronts, militarily, politically, economically, and socially, speculation is growing about Russian President Vladimir Putin's motives and goals for the fighting, and whether the moment to stop it is approaching.
To shed light on the nature of the Russian position, the American reaction, and the scenarios for the coming weeks and months, Al Jazeera Net conducted an interview with Robert Pearson, professor of international relations at West Point, the most famous American military academy.
This academic focuses his research on the foreign and domestic policy of Russia and the former Soviet countries, and he will soon publish his new book on "The Great Russian Strategy in the 21st Century".
Pearson holds a Ph.D. from Yale University and a master's degree from Stanford University, and is a nonresident fellow at the Institute of Modern Warfare.
American expert Robert Pearson believes that the end of the Ukraine war is still far away (Al-Jazeera)
Why did this war start?
What are Putin's real goals?
One of the enduring strategic goals of Russia over the past twenty years has been to create a distinct and exclusive sphere of influence in the countries that were part of the Soviet Union.
This amounts to Moscow's desire to veto any foreign or domestic policies of these countries, if it deems that they may harm Russian interests.
After years of failing to achieve this in Ukraine through so-called "hybrid" methods, Putin appears to have concluded that the only way he can keep Ukraine in his sphere of influence permanently is to attack its territory and overthrow its government by force, with the elected democratic government replaced. In Kyiv with a loyal government.
This was Putin's original goal, and it is now clear that he failed to achieve it.
Will the Russian attack on Ukraine achieve its goals?
Analyzes of Russia's initial offensive operations indicate that it expected a rapid advance in a blitzkrieg across Ukraine, ending with the encirclement of Kyiv allowing the government to be overthrown by force.
The Russian army has failed to achieve this goal, thanks in large part to the stiff resistance of the Ukrainian army, poor logistical operations, defective equipment, and poor military strategy on the Russian side.
Russia clearly overestimated its combat effectiveness while underestimating Ukraine's, leading Moscow to implement an unrealistic plan of attack, and was unable to achieve Putin's political goals in Ukraine.
What are the main mistakes of the Russian army's operation in Ukraine?
One of the major mistakes of Russia's war plan was to spread offensive force across multiple fronts in northern, eastern and southern Ukraine.
As a result, they have stumbled all over the place, and it is unlikely that they will be able to make significant offensive gains in the future.
Meanwhile, Russia lost a great deal of its fighting power in military operations that ultimately failed to achieve its regional or political goals.
Had it concentrated its power on one front, it would have had a greater chance of advancing much further into Ukraine.
Additionally, Russia appears to have failed to appreciate the importance of maintaining equipment and mastering logistics in preparing for this war.
These errors seriously hampered its forces' ability to advance rapidly through Ukraine.
A common saying in the US military that "if you fail to plan, you plan to fail" is a lesson Russia has failed to learn.
On the outskirts of Donbass, where Russia declares that its goal in the war is to control this region (the island)
And what do you think of Russia's claim that the plan of the attack was only about the control of the Donbass region?
This is only a face-saving attempt to distract from the failure of the original plan of attack.
Russia already took control of those parts of Donbass that are claimed by the so-called Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics before February 24.
And it wouldn't make sense for her to launch a massive attack from 3 directions to achieve something she already had.
Having failed to capture Kyiv and other parts of northern and eastern Ukraine, Russian forces will now retreat to consolidate their recent gains south of that country along the Azov and Black Sea coasts.
But these gains are simply "consolidation prizes" for a failed attempt to take over the entire country.
And what would Russia's defeat in its war with Ukraine look like?
There is still so much uncertainty about how the war will develop that it is almost impossible to predict its scenarios, but I suspect that we are heading towards a situation very similar to 2014-2022 where there will be continuous fighting across fairly semi-stable frontlines, and it seems That Russia will gain control of new lands compared to the situation before the war.
Unfortunately, I believe that Russia can maintain such a position for a very long time unless significant escalation of sanctions undermines its ability to pursue a more limited fight.
Thus, I think that Russia is far from being "defeated" and a complete withdrawal from Ukrainian territory.
Does Washington support any outcomes of the ongoing negotiations between Moscow and Kiev, including an alternative to "neutral Ukraine"?
It is up to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, his government and above all the Ukrainian people to determine the terms on which they might agree to a settlement of a war they neither requested nor initiated.
Only they can decide whether neutrality or any other concession to Russia is best for the future survival and prosperity of the Ukrainian nation.
They cannot be pressured by outsiders to make such concessions.
If they agree to such terms for peace, they should have the full support of Ukraine's partners, including Washington and Brussels.
The American expert talks about 5 measures that the Biden administration should take to support Ukraine (Al-Jazeera)
Practically speaking, what can the Biden administration do to help Ukraine?
There are 5 things the United States, NATO and the European Union can do to support Ukraine.
The first is to immediately escalate sanctions to the maximum extent possible such as expelling all Russian banks from the SWIFT mechanism and imposing secondary sanctions on Russian banks, thus preventing banks from third countries from helping Russia avoid the economic cost of sanctions.
The second is to take concrete steps to end purchases of oil and gas from Russia.
This will take time and be costly for the West, but until these steps are taken, buyers of Russian energy are directly financing the Russian war.
A third measure is to increase humanitarian aid to Ukraine and the countries that have received its refugees.
The fourth step is for the United States to significantly increase the number of Ukrainian refugees allowed into its territory.
That number currently stands at 100,000, far below the 2.5 million refugees accepted by Poland, for example.
Finally, the United States and NATO can significantly increase their military aid and arms shipments to Ukraine so that it can stay in the fight and keep fighting.
Additional defensive weapons, such as anti-tank, anti-aircraft and missile systems, will allow Ukraine to withstand future Russian attacks.
Offensive weapons, such as tanks, armored personnel carriers, drones, and MiG fighter jets, would allow Ukraine to attack Russian forces in areas under Russian occupation to stop the humanitarian catastrophe that is now taking place there.
Was Biden wise to describe Putin as a "butcher and war criminal" who should not remain in power?
As the world wakes up to the horrific images of defenseless Ukrainian men, women and children brutally executed by Russian forces in Bucha and elsewhere, it now seems clear that President Biden was right to describe Putin and his military as butchers.
Evidence of war crimes, and possibly genocide, is widespread, and I think it's important to call things what they are, whether or not such statements by the president are deemed "undiplomatic" is irrelevant.
I don't think it has any bearing on Putin's thinking, actions, or prospects for a peace agreement.
What do you think of Putin's threat to resort to nuclear weapons?
Talk of the use of nuclear weapons is likely to be merely a tactical threat.
The Russian nuclear doctrine makes clear that these weapons will only be used when they are used against Russia or when the existence of the Russian state is threatened.
A defeat or withdrawal from Ukraine is unlikely to be an existential threat to Moscow, and therefore unlikely to lead to nuclear use.
Putin may have badly miscalculated Ukraine, but I don't think he's irrational.
He has long understood the logic of deterrence and mutually assured destruction, estimating that the use of nuclear weapons against a nuclear-armed adversary or ally of Washington would be devastating.
And I think he understands that the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear Ukraine would be so universally condemned that Russia would be completely isolated from even its closest supporters.
Do you think Putin underestimated the Biden administration's response to the attack?
I think Putin might have expected a strong American response, but he clearly underestimated the reaction of European governments, as well as the extraordinary unity that the United States and the European Union showed in opposing the attack.
For many years, Russia reduced the amount of dollars held in foreign banks in anticipation of future US sanctions, but instead transferred most of that money to the euro.
This suggests to me that Putin foresaw a split between the United States and the European Union and that he would be able to continue business as usual with Europe.
Once again, he miscalculated.
Aside from Russia and Ukraine, who are the winners and losers in the current crisis?
I think that NATO and the European Union are emerging as "victors" as they have both been revitalized and their efforts and goals united.
There is a higher degree of transatlantic solidarity than we have seen since the end of the Cold War.
What are the main geostrategic consequences of the war on Russia?
Although Russia and China talk about a "multipolar" system of international politics in the 21st century, I think this war shows the world that Russia is not financially capable of emerging as a global power.
Beijing is likely to realize this, and while it will continue to find a common goal with a weak and declining Russia, this reinforces its belief that the next century will be dominated by strategic competition between the United States and China, and Russia will be a second-tier player capable of disrupting and destabilizing the countries and regions that it targets. But it will not have a global strategic impact beyond that.
American expert: Putin will not give up power in Russia voluntarily (Reuters)
What if Putin disappears tomorrow (by death, assassination, etc.) Is there a clear line of succession?
Who will replace him?
Like most dictatorships, Putin's Russia has no line of succession, and no successor has been named, and this is the dictator's dilemma. His safety and security, is to stay in power.
And if Putin chooses a successor, allegiances will likely shift to the future later, potentially tempting the latter to seize power sooner.
Therefore, Putin is in some ways a prisoner of his own regime.
Although we cannot predict how or when he will leave power, it is unlikely that he will give up voluntarily.