A former officer, James Heappey, number two in the British Ministry of Defence, served in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland. British Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, he details the military aid offered to Ukrainians by the United Kingdom.
Page Contents
Mariupol is about to fall. What lessons do you draw from this for the rest of the war?
Clearly, the situation is very precarious. You have to see things in a larger context. The Russians control the Sea of Azov, so the port on this sea no longer has the strategic importance it once had. Ukrainian resistance in Mariupol has siphoned off a huge chunk of Russian military resources; some of the best Russian units, sent from Crimea and the Southern Military District of Russia, are no longer in a condition to fight. The Battle of Mariupol set the stage for what is to come next: a much more balanced fight between Ukrainian and Russian forces in the east of the country.
The fall of Mariupol, if confirmed, does not really change things strategically. If I were the Ukrainians, I would consider the defense of Mariupol as the key event that caused the Russians to review their territorial ambitions and revise their plans. It allows the Ukrainians to reduce the threat to the rest of the country, and to approach the fight in Donbass with more chances of success.
What makes you say that the Ukrainian forces are able to fight effectively in Donbass?
I’m sure they can. There is a moral component. You have a demoralized Russian army, which does not know what its objectives are, which is very badly directed – there are examples of soldiers who rebel against their superiors because of the deplorable decisions they have taken on the ground. What characterizes the political leadership of this campaign is its hubris, and this hubris interferes with the military plans in an extraordinary way. So yes, I deeply believe that Ukrainians can end this conflict on their terms, and the UK and many other countries are determined to provide them with what they need to achieve this.
What military assistance do you provide to Ukraine?
It was quite a process. We started in January with portable anti-tank weapons, some small arms and communications equipment. At that stage, of course, we wanted to help the Ukrainians in their initial defence, but we were mainly thinking of what would be useful in the resistance campaign that would follow, because like everyone else, we thought that from the beginning the Russian power would be overwhelming. Then we provided anti-aircraft defense systems, including portable ones. We then took it further: now we plan to provide them with anti-ship capabilities, prowl munitions, we send them armored vehicles, and we actively encourage the countries of central Europe that have Warsaw Pact arsenals to give up their armaments, which integrate much more easily into the Ukrainian forces than ours or those of France. And our part, in this deal, is to compensate for the equipment they have given away.
You have 58.62% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
