Kazem Yawar, the end of the Russo-Ukrainian war will not be near... and Kyiv has turned into a testing ground for weapons between Moscow and Washington

The war in Ukraine has reached its peak in 2022, and it was not expected to last for a month or two... but it continued for twelve months and its end is still unclear.

Regarding the war that has caused tensions in the world, we had this dialogue with Kazem Yawar, a researcher in strategic policies in the Middle East.

First of all, what are the main features of the situation on the ground in the Russo-Ukrainian war?

Kazem Yawar: The situation on the ground in the Russo-Ukrainian war has changed significantly, and the Ukrainian forces have managed to withstand the Russian army or armies to a great extent. Moreover, they have even managed to liberate some areas from Russian control. All of these factors bring us back to the origin and beginning of the war, where the Russian objectives were summarized in achieving quick control and dismantling the military capabilities and infrastructure of Ukraine, so that it would not become a suitable ground for further empowerment and future NATO presence on Ukrainian soil.

Russia initially hoped that its forces entering Ukraine would receive a positive reaction from some Ukrainian factions who are pro-Russian, and based on that, the governing regime in Kyiv would be changed in favor of Russia. However, this estimation and plan did not materialize since the beginning of the war.

What is Russia's vision for the war and resolving matters in Ukraine?

Russia shifted to another vision when it realized that there is a cohesive system with a Western support led by the United States, which is NATO. This support is a strong pillar for this system in Ukraine, and NATO's goal is to engage Russia in an attritional war in Ukraine.

Russia, on its part, accepted this attritional war and dealt with it accordingly. It slowed down the process of the Ukrainian regime and the Ukrainian army's quick collapse at the hands of Russian forces in order to exhaust NATO and the United States in return.

Are there any other objectives for Russia in accepting this attritional war?

Russia is working on exploring the capabilities of NATO and the United States. The results of the confrontations on the ground have enabled Russia to understand and assess the extent of NATO's support to the Ukrainian army.

While Russia is losing and being exhausted, there are problems within NATO and the United States, and sometimes we see internal issues in the United States regarding the continuation of absolute and unlimited support for Ukraine, perhaps due to political, security, and economic reasons.

What is the secret behind the resilience of the Ukrainian army in the face of the Russian bear?

Naturally, the war in Ukraine has transitioned from a local war between Ukraine and Russia to becoming a pivotal war. The resilience of the Ukrainian army against Russia may be attributed to the patriotism and bravery of the Ukrainian soldiers, to some extent. However, it does not mean that this courage is the decisive factor in this resilience. We must take into account that Russia used the Ukrainian attrition tactic and the Ukrainian support represented by NATO.

Ukraine has indeed made progress in some Ukrainian states and cities, but we should not forget that the war is taking place within Ukraine itself, and the destruction of infrastructure is at the expense of the Ukrainian state. All operations are taking place within Ukraine, and although there is some progress, it is at the cost of demolishing infrastructure and entire cities.

We must be accurate in describing the Ukrainian war, and there is no indication that the first year of the war ending means that the second or even third year will see its conclusion. There is no evidence or indications of the war ending in the near future.

Do you believe that Ukrainian progress in some regions could open the door for Kiev to demand the return of Crimea, which is currently under Moscow's control?

Regarding the question of whether Russia will lose or withdraw from Crimea, militarily speaking, the Ukrainian forces would need to cut off supplies and routes leading to Crimea. This would require significant effort from the Ukrainian forces. However, it should be noted that there are strategically important cities currently held by Russian forces, and Ukrainian forces have not made any advances to liberate them.

If there are any general Russian withdrawals or setbacks, diplomatic considerations would naturally come into play. However, at this moment, we cannot assess the situation accurately on the ground. There are still strategic routes controlled by Russia within Ukrainian territories.

How would Russia respond if international pressure is applied regarding the issue of Crimea?

When considering the scenario of taking Crimea back from Russia, I would not rule out the possibility of Russia resorting to the use of nuclear weapons if matters escalate to that point.

Crimea holds significant importance for Russia at this stage. It would not engage in diplomatic or military negotiations. If there is a direct military threat to Russian forces in Crimea, we cannot rule out Russia resorting to the use of nuclear options, although on a limited scale rather than on a large scale.

Nuclear weapons remain weapons of mass destruction that no observer or individual wishes to be used. However, wishes are one thing, and the actions of states and their dealings with each other in wars, particularly involving superpowers, cannot be compared to the behavior of ordinary individuals in regular human societies.

Considering that we have witnessed the use of nuclear weapons by the United States in Japan during the war, it is not out of the question for Russia to use this weapon to demonstrate that it will not surrender and that it remains a polar state. If Russia loses hope in this polarity, it may resort to using nuclear weapons.