U.S. Institute of Peace experts discuss the latest foreign policy issues from around the world in On Peace, a brief weekly collaboration with SiriusXM's POTUS Channel 124.

Transcript

Julie Mason: Dr. Donald N. Jensen joins me now. He's director of Russia and strategic stability at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Dr. Jensen, good morning.

Donald Jensen: Good morning. Thank you for having me.

Julie Mason: Yeah. Good to have you back. So, what is the status of the war in Ukraine? It seems so grim and cold; it's so depressing to even follow the coverage.

Donald Jensen: Well, it is grim and depressing but on the other hand, Ukraine still appears to be winning on the battlefield. And that's why Putin is striking civilian targets because the Russian army has performed so poorly. I just spoke to a friend in Kyiv, and they've lost the electricity, excuse me, they've lost the lights this morning but the power for the rest of the apartment is fine, and they still have water. And they live downtown, and this goes on now more than weekly. This, I think, is the 10th wave of Russian rocket and drone attacks. But in a sense, you could look at it as reflecting Russian desperation. They can't win, especially given the aid we've given [Ukraine], we in the West [and] in the United States in particular. So, they're just going to attack civilian targets and hope that that weakens the resolve of the Ukrainian people to resist, but there's no sign that's happening.

Julie Mason: The resilience of the people is extraordinary. I think Americans would have given up six months ago.

Donald Jensen: Could well be and I think you saw that TIME named Zelensky Man of the Year, but this goes top to down. The NGO community has been extremely active, led in many cases by women. You saw, one got the Nobel Prize, awarded recently. And it's been very, very impressive. And I would add, Julie, that this is a major difference between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine is a democracy. Ukraine has civilians from the bottom up who are resisting, who are organizing, who are volunteering, and that's quite a bit different from their enormous neighbor to the east.

Julie Mason: What is your sense of the state of play in Russia?

Donald Jensen: Well, very interesting you asked that. Unfortunately, public opinion shows overwhelming support for the war, although there is growing criticism of how the war has been conducted, Putin's leadership, [and] the leadership of the Russian military. They don't give a lot of the Western factual stories about the war crimes, but they do know that the Russian army has not performed well. But unfortunately, on the one hand, criticism of the war has largely been from the radical patriotic wing who think Putin should be tougher, who think the war should be prosecuted more efficiently. But there's, on the other hand, no peace party at all. There's no domestic pressure on Putin to slow down or stop or go for negotiations. Those people, if they exist, have largely left the country. So, that in particular, in terms of looking at the prospects down the road for a settlement, that is particularly depressing. And while negotiations don't seem to be in the offering, the Kremlin is dangling that in the West and in Europe in particular, hoping that that will put pressure on Kyiv, on Zelensky, on the Ukrainian government to move to the negotiating table. But I would say we're far from that.

Julie Mason: Yeah, that was my follow up question, because this idea of a negotiated settlement has sort of been hovering around the conflict, pretty much since it began, but it seems like a hypothetical, not anything really real.

Donald Jensen: Julie, you're absolutely right. And if you're winning and pushing the Russians slowly backward in several places, which the Ukrainians are, they're saying, 'give us our land back,' they're saying, 'we want reparations.' And as you know, $300 billion of Russian money is frozen in western accounts. And they're saying, 'why should we go to the negotiations?' because Russia really hasn't moved a bit from their position last February 24, which is that we're going to control Ukraine, we're going to take it over one way or the other, no matter what the cost. And that's where we stand now. So, when you look at the Congress, Julie, and you see some interest-, disappointing but interesting increase in the number of people who are calling for negotiations, it's important to keep in mind that's a minority that the Western aid, particularly with the U.S. aid, has been decisive so far, and there's no sign that's going to stop anytime soon.

Julie Mason: It's been interesting to see the rise of drone warfare in this conflict.

Donald Jensen: Yes, it is. Julie, that's a new phase of warfare that has not been that noticed in recent conflicts elsewhere. Number one, they're much more effective now than they used to be. Number two, they are cheap. Russians can get some from the Iranians or elsewhere, and you can send them over at no risk of life. And the Ukrainians now are using them too. And they're hitting Russian targets inside the Russian Federation. And that's all new. This is a kind of warfare we haven't seen very much of. The related dimension is, of course, the anti-drone, anti-missile systems that both sides use, we have given Ukrainians effective weaponry. And when you look at the attack this morning, for example, about three quarters of the Russian drones and rockets were shot down by the Ukrainians before they hit the target, but they need more. But this drone warfare is relatively new in terms of being actually used in the fighting.

Julie Mason: The U.S. has been pretty clear that they don't want U.S. equipment being used to attack targets in Russia, does that apply to drones as well?

Donald Jensen: I think one has to be careful how one looks at the problem here. The U.S. does not want our stuff being used to attack Russia, inside Russia. However, the goal is that the Ukrainians do it themselves with their own stuff. And you see, every day just about now, there are Ukrainian weapons hitting inside the Russian Federation in the cities, especially along the border. And frankly, that has terrified a lot of Russian citizens. And it has also shaken the confidence of many people in Putin. Because after all, he'd supposedly did this to ensure Russia's security and how can Russia be secure if a government they see as a puppet of the United States is hitting their own territory. So, that goes on every day, there are even partisan activities inside Russia. But the U.S. does not want our stuff being used to attack Russia directly. And that affects decisions, as we saw the debate last week on Patriot missiles, for example, because those can hit weapons over Russia. So, the U.S. has tried to walk a fine line, so far it has worked. But the dynamic has tended to be a Western response to Putin's escalation, step by step by step, and who knows what the next step might be. But for now, that is the guideline, under which the U.S. gives Ukraine aid. You might also remember the HIMARS, which they were given, which have a maximum range because we did not want them to hit targets inside Russia. But it's increasingly a gray area, Julie, and it's something military experts argue about that the practical effect on the ground is now becoming a little bit more ambiguous.

Julie Mason: And Dr. Jensen an emerging flashpoint seems to be surrounding the contemplated provision of Patriot anti-missile systems to Ukraine.

Donald Jensen: The Patriots are very effective. The problem is that they're very expensive. They take several soldiers to operate, and we don't have many of those. They are in great demand, not only in Ukraine, but by our Western allies. I don't think the Biden administration has decided one way or the other yet, whether to give them but for the moment, even if they were given, I don't think they would turn the tide say as much as the HIMARS did last summer, which allowed Ukrainians to hit Russian targets way behind Russian lines. And that really has changed the course of the war. Patriots I think over the short term, if they are given, will not have that kind of effect.

Julie Mason: Dr. Donald Jensen, thank you so much for joining me this morning.

Donald Jensen: Thank you.

Julie Mason: Have a good day.