>> Good evening and welcome to Prime Time.

I'm here.

>> Since the war in Ukraine is in its fifth month, U.S. officials estimate that Russia now controls about twenty percent of Ukraine with a conflict line that stretches for nearly 700 miles after initial setbacks, Russian troops are making gains in eastern Ukraine and with these incremental advances, has Russia's war in Ukraine entered a new phase?

What are some scenarios for how this war plays out and what is the impact of NATO's edition of Finland and Sweden?

Are international sanctions working as planned?

Well, we'll ask those questions and others of an associate professor of history at Purdue Fort Wayne .

>> She special in Russian history and you see her right there and thank you very much for being with us.

>> We really appreciate that.

>> And share first of all from your first visit to now there have indeed been incursions.

>> What is the significance of Russia's advance in the Donbas region?

>> Well, I think before we talk about Russia's advances, I think it is important to note that when we look at for example, the the first phase of the attack we saw Russia trying to attack in a number of different areas and one of the things that we saw after the first couple of months is Russia's retreat.

Right.

Both Russia's retreat and also Ukraine advances in certain areas which has resulted in Russia focusing its most of its military might in the east in the region because it feels that it's you know, it's a safer area.

>> It's the area that they feel that they have a better chance of being able to hold onto.

And so I think kind when we're framing and we're framing the conflict, it is important to know that while there certainly been some advances, we also have seen a lot of losses for Russia as well and a lot of failures.

Right, of Russian military leadership, Russian military strategy.

It doesn't mean that Ukraine hasn't suffered and that things have not you know, there hasn't been tremendous loss of life, you know, for for Ukraine.

But certainly Russia's military effort is is not quite as triumphant as they anticipated when this conflict started and in the region do you have it that indeed the residents there are a number of them are more pro Russia in their their their back or his hit is more of a historical tie that perhaps the Kremlin is taking advantage of ?

>> It's it's complicated in part because that region has already been and while there are many ways of framing it, one can argue that this territory has already been under partial Russian occupation since 2014.

And so certainly as a result that occupation there have been some significant demographic shifts.

So whatever was the case in 20 40 certainly people who were able to leave and who did not want to leave under Russian occupation have left people who didn't have the option to leave or people who thought who liked living in the territory that was more closely affiliated with Russia.

You know, they stayed.

It's also important to based on what we know about the nature of this occupation, the tremendous amount of violence, you know, that against the civilian population.

So at this point kind of to be able to talk about genuine genuine popular opinion in a territory under such complicated circumstances, it's you know, it's really hard to do right.

>> Do people truly feel free to say what they believe in and where their allegiance is line?

>> And it has been a significant toll in destruction and death on both sides as you mentioned.

>> In fact, one observer was referencing the current war in Ukraine to the kind of battle that was fought in World War One so very heavily artillery driven and heavy losses and both sides actually now looking to figure out where the next relief in troops to support their efforts comes from.

>> Absolutely.

I mean I think that we're you know, we're looking at the casualties you know, the casualties on both sides.

I do think it's important for us to to appreciate that when we're looking at casualties on Russia's side, we're talking about primarily military casualties, people who either volunteered to go fight or who couldn't get out of fighting.

>> You know, whatever the case may be.

Right.

So we're looking at people who were part of an invading army.

Right.

Who were part of you know, an army was military strategy primarily relies on destruction of the civilian population and so we see losses there when we're looking at casualties on the Ukrainian side.

Certainly there are casualties in the Ukrainian military as well.

But the bulk of the casualties on the Ukrainian side are civilians.

Right again because of Russian Russia's military strategy relies so much on I mean the claim is that they're going after military targets but the reality is that they're going after civilian targets and so the loss of life is civilian population there most recently the strategy has you know, has focused on bombing of residential areas at night and bombing shopping centers during the day.

Why people aren't shopping centers during the day.

>> People are sleeping in their beds at night.

Right.

These are the strategies designed to ensure that maximum casualties among the civilian population.

>> Why?

Because the goal is that's the type of war that Russia has chosen to it has chosen to fight.

Right.

Instilling terror in the civilian population as a way to hope to realize its military goals because it has not been able to accomplish what it assumed it was going to be able to easily accomplish, namely defeat Ukrainian military on a clearly defined you know, on a clearly defined battlefield using some form of conventional military strategy.

>> So if that is Russia's approach then have these past three months or five months given any more insight into if you President Putin's motivations for taking this up, why would you go scorched earth ?

>> You know, when you're looking at a country you wish to preserve because of its agricultural and trade, its proximity to the balance of Europe, its access to the Black Sea, why would you do that?

>> I don't think that we can truly look at Putin.

>> I mean when we're thinking about Putin's strategy and you know that not everybody agrees that there is a strategy kind of rational sense.

But we're what we're talking about is not somebody who is trying to annex a territory that that Russia can benefit from but we're talking about punishment and destruction.

>> Ukraine is being punished for daring to want to be independent for daring to proclaim that they are their own nation and for not wanting to be reincorporated into Russia's vision of its kind of old school imperial grandeur and that is what Ukraine is being punished for .

And so that's where we see I mean the destruction of the civilian population, the atrocities committed against the civilian population, the destruction of the destruction of of housing, the destruction of industrial and agricultural targets.

It is all designed to impoverish Ukraine because ultimately Russia does not need Ukraine for economic reasons.

Russia needs Ukraine to be an empire by Putin's vision of of Russia as an empire necessitates the inclusion of these particular territories that Ukraine dares to claim belong to Ukraine.

An independent European state.

>> And so he has the tide of the war as they say, turned to Russia's favor as of here in the middle of July.

>> I don't believe so.

I don't believe so.

The main event there there are two there are three advantages that Russia has the first advantages that Russia is a big country.

>> It can afford to lose for longer than some countries can afford to win on.

It is a relatively stable political system.

It has been as a result tremendous work over the last decade it has been able to effectively neutralize any meaningful opposition and as a result and it has control over the media.

Right.

So you can spend the war however it needs to for domestic consumption.

It can claim whatever it needs to claim about what's actually happening, what's actually happening in Ukraine and so it doesn't have to worry in modern warfare countries that don't cannot carry out a successful war effort tend to at some point get worried about the stability of the home front.

>> Right and if a government can't successfully carry out a war effort, the government's existence right.

>> It's potentially in question Russia has addressed Putin's government has addressed this problem through the elimination of opposition and so it has kind of this breathing space right where it doesn't actually have to win and it doesn't have to worry about potential potential loss of power.

The second the second is oil, oil and gas ultimately I mean to put it very bluntly, Russia's war is being funded by people who buy Russian oil and gas the the amount of money that is being funneled into Russia's economy because of that from Europe, from the West is what helps fund this fund, this war.

Right.

And so as long as Europe is dependent on Russian oil, this is a huge this is something that you know, this is something that Russia Russia has and the third is the hope that the world will look away.

>> Right.

If as long as you know when we're thinking about when the war started every day the front page were pictures of of of of the war.

>> We're now in month five.

Occasionally something shows up on the front page but there's a lot of other there's so much else going on in the world.

>> Right.

And we can't create a hierarchy of what's more important to that particular conflict or some other conflict or frankly what's going on in our country at this particular moment in time.

>> And so this is another major advantage that Putin has is that he can wait while the rest of the world gets bored, tired, you know, and looks away at which point Russia can step up their atrocities and can to continue to kind of to drag to drag this out.

>> But as far as the actual war itself, I don't believe that the tide that the tide has turned Russia has you know, has had some successes but also every day brings some interesting examples of Russia's strategic failures.

Right.

Russia's strength lies in basically kind of war crimes bombing civilian targets, large scale destruction when it comes to actual military strategy flexibility that's something that has been demonstrated over the last five months to be severely, severely lacking just today.

Yes, Yesterday I believe yesterday there was Ukraine destroyed a significant proportion of of Russia of ammunition that Russia had why Russia stored it within the range of the missiles that Ukraine can launch and so should you know, should it have all been in one place?

>> Should it have been so close?

>> Right.

I mean these are strategic issues, right?

Will Russia be able to get more?

Of course Russia will be able to get more.

>> But at this particular moment in time, Russia kind of there's a serious there's a serious ammunition shortage.

>> How does Russia compensate for that while it's going to burn some wheat fields, you know, as a way to compensate for because you don't need too much ammunition to late to light that on fire and we're seeing that image now and just in reporting here in recent days about twenty two million tons of grain is now trapped inside Ukraine according to President Vladimir Slansky, which is a growing crisis.

They're running out of storage capacity by the end of September.

So goes the reporting from the Associated Press and that the lack of access to grain and agricultural goods could worsen hunger for up to one hundred and eighty one million people it's estimated.

>> Meanwhile, we look at a way to perhaps see where the tide is going in out or to which side.

>> Your thoughts on this?

The U.S. continues to send much more high tech weaponry into the battlefields now another 400 million dollars in aid militarily to Ukraine has gone the heimer's truck based rocket systems are out there and many say once the training is done those have been implemented implemented.

>> We could see a different kind of story coming from the front lines and you're nodding your head in agreement?

>> Absolutely.

I think the high marks have already already started have already started working on certainly we are seeing I think one of the things that we've seen and again this is possibly this is propaganda and because of course Ukraine has to present a particular image to the west right in the middle of a country that's ready to fight.

>> One of the interesting things that we have seen is that Russia is having a hard time getting you know, getting people to go fight.

>> There was there was a rash of , you know, bombing attacks on recruitment centers throughout Russia.

>> People don't want to go and die in Ukraine.

There were stories in the last couple of days have been coming out that allegedly Russia is recruiting prisoners to go fight sort of you don't have to serve your term.

You can go and fight and again we can imagine what happens right if you now inject violent you know, violent criminals into the into the military that is already committing war crimes in occupied in occupied territories.

Ukraine on the other hand says that they have nine hundred thousand people in reserve ready to go.

What they need is weapons.

They have plenty of people.

They just you know, they just need weapons right.

So that's the narrative that we see coming out of Ukraine with the assumption that if they have enough weapons they will be able to bring in more people in into into the field.

>> And the story right is that they are ready to fight.

They're ready to fight for their country.

>> They're ready to defend their country.

They just need they just need something to be able to do.

You to do it with effectively on the propaganda front you brought a couple of examples of of particularly for example online when somebody is doing a search explain what we're seeing here on this is I mean one of the things that we kind of one of the interesting things that we see is the way that I think when the war started a lot of people assumed that Russian propaganda because it has had so many successes you know, most notably of course in twenty sixteen in the United States but certainly in other countries around the world, especially around election time, the assumption was that Russia was going to be able to dominate the propaganda war.

And one of the things that we have seen is that Russia is able to control the environment people within Russia are exposed to.

And so the images that we see here when you when you Google Bujar right one the one of the sites one of the one of the first sites of mass atrocities that were uncovered after the the the the area was liberated from Russian occupation when you Google it anywhere else in the world you see you see the photographs of atrocities when you when you Google it in within Russia you see pictures of what the town looked like before the war before the war started so Russia can control the Russian and kind of the Russian environment reasonably well but they have not been able to to shape public opinion.

The way that I think a lot of people assumed they would be able to in the West and that has been kind of a really interesting thing.

>> Let me ask you a couple of friends we touched on the beginning of Finland and Sweden completed accession talks at NATO.

Another step toward toward membership expected unexpected if you're President Putin, your thoughts on just the moving in of itself.

>> Speaking of popular opinion, certainly the war has done wonders for NATO.

I think before the war there were some narratives where questions were raised about do we still need NATO right.

NATO was a product of a particular you know, of of early Cold War.

Do we still really need NATO in the world today?

What does NATO mean?

And I think certainly the war has has has given NATO greater prominence and it really changed public opinion in places like Sweden and Finland.

Sweden and Finland could have joined NATO anytime they wanted to but they didn't want this was a conscious choice both on the part of politicians in Sweden and Finland but also the general population, the desire not to be a part of this particular structure for for a variety of historical reasons that we don't have time to get into.

>> And as a result and as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there was a dramatic change in public opinion.

It wasn't just that the politicians decided we need to do this.

This was in response to a significant shift in public opinion in those in those two countries and of course having Finland and Sweden as part of this coalition broadens it significantly and certainly the conversation about NATO being irrelevant or NATO having outlived its usefulness.

Right.

That's not that's no longer that's no longer the most important conversation to have to have about NATO.

>> So certainly kind of a shot in the arm for this institution has been really interesting to see the national intelligence agencies gave testimony to Congress toward the end of June and several scenarios for how the war might play out with the notion that in one scenario it might well be that eastern Ukraine's victories for Russia would break Ukraine's will to fight which would allow Russia to take even more it maybe they don't go much farther and they run into a grinding struggle was the direct quote or that Ukraine would halt the advance and lead into additional counterattack and change the whole narrative.

>> Do any of those scenarios seem more or less likely to you at this hour today?

>> Well, certainly you know, I think the CIA has has access to information that I don't so I don't necessarily want to raise you know, I'm not in a position to question their you know, their data.

But as a historian I would say that the breaking the scenario in which Ukraine's will to fight is broken is a scenario I simply do not see possible.

>> I mean Ukraine Ukraine is is a democracy with a wide range of political parties some much more militantly minded you know, against against Russia than than others.

It is simply it's unimaginable to me that even if I mean certainly the current government if the current government no longer wanted to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, I don't believe that the current government of Ukraine would be able to continue as the government as the government of Ukraine.

>> So I definitely think that Ukraine is fighting for its survival and I think so as a result some of the conversations and understand the kind of the broader conversations about you know, have to include these questions about well, you know, what do we have to do?

What are some deals that we have to make?

But I think we have to be very careful about this kind of you know, this kind of deal making.

I think there was some of the conversations that we saw coming out of places like France or Germany.

>> Right.

Well, maybe maybe Ukraine should give a piece of Ukraine to Russia to to make Russia feel better about themselves and then maybe we can you know, can have peace.

It's notable, right, that it's France and Germany.

They're saying this we don't see Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland.

Right countries that have experienced Russian aggression directly in the 20th century.

We don't see leaders of those countries saying hey, if we give Russia a piece of , you know, one of us, I'm sure they will stop being a danger to world peace and you know, in a threat to the rest of there the rest of their neighbors.

And so I think any conversely I mean for Ukraine they are you know, this is not a theoretical struggle for them if they if they stop fighting Ukraine stops existing as an independent state so that they have a lot more at stake.

Right.

Than anybody else at this particular you know, at this particular time.

>> Right.

There is a an online source for additional information relative to what is going on within Ukraine on the war there you train crushed trust chain Ukraine trust change the name of the organization Tosspot.

>> So Ukraine Trust Cheen is an organization that was created by immigrants from Ukraine and Belarus when the war started and this was these were people who who came who left the former Soviet Union who came to the United States and who wanted to be able to do something to help people who are suffering during this particular war.

So we're organization it's a purely volunteer organization and they do tremendous, tremendous work to help to help people in Ukraine to help address the various humanitarian crises that are arising and certainly for they collect information about what's happening, how they spend their money.

And so certainly it's a great website to go to so you can see how an organization can do a tremendous amount of good in this particular conflict where we're asking this question of what can we do when when these words are taking place and one of these analysts sought to try to frame it all by putting it this way that the best way to prevent the next war is to defeat Putin in this one.

This according to a writer for The Economist.

How pivotal is all of this in a larger scheme of things in your view?

>> Very I do think that Putin is central to what is happening.

I think that this is part of Putin's desire to create a legacy to recreate an empire personal pursuit of power and grandeur.

And so I think that as long as he's in charge of Russia, the war is going to continue and these horrors and atrocities and death and destruction is going to is going to continue.

And any possibility that he can be appeased as a historian particularly given what we know about the 20th century WikiLeaks conversations about what happened when various authoritarian leaders did horrible things and the rest of the world watched and we look back on the 20th century and we say how could they have not known?

How could they have not stopped?

We are currently living in a time where similar questions can can be asked what are we doing to help people who are suffering?

What are we doing to help people whose whose lives are being destroyed on a regular basis because of one person's desire for power and grandeur and what are we willing to give up right and what are we willing to allow to happen on our watch and on our watch we're hearing that same power saying it's time for us to reclaim Alaska which could be additional propaganda.

We, you know, take this too far but it surprises but perhaps doesn't surprise me.

>> I wouldn't I mean I I I tend to be pessimistic person.

I'm not super worried about Alaska not because I don't love Alaska but I think that if there's anything that we have seen in the last five months is that the Russian military is over extended quite simply in its attempt to reclaim Ukraine.

>> I think there was a lot of saber rattling at the start.

Well, what other former Soviet republic is going to be next?

It's clear that Russia is not in a position to actually do that but certainly it can make a lot of noise when the one minute for one last pivotal question is a diplomatic resolution of this conflict ultimately the only way out?

>> Yes, as long as Ukraine is at the table, I think it's crucial that Ukraine is part of the conversation that this is not some kind of great powers come together to try to figure out how to appease Russia, allow Putin to maintain his status, allow Russia to maintain its great power status.

Ukraine has to be a participant in any conversation about how the conflict can possibly can possibly be stopped because at the end of the day anything else is is both kind of a you know, a potential re re re enactment of some horrible things from the twentieth century but also not an actual resolution to the situation.

Dr. has been our guest for a very, very first half hours.

I knew it would be thank you so much for being a part of it.

Thank you so much for having me.

She is associate professor of history at Purdue Fort Wayne specializing in Russian history and all of us at prime time appreciate your being a part of tonight's program as well.

Joins us next week for every one of the PBS Fort Wayne.

Thanks for watching.

Take care.

We'll see you soon.

Good night