On the 58th day of the war, the martyr city of Mariupol resisted in the barricade with its two thousand men, soldiers and civiliansAzovstal Steelworks. The deputy mayor assures that the city has not fallen and that Putin refrains from bombing to avoid a bloodbath, but because of the importance of the factory and the lack of necessary military resources. Mariupol is therefore fighting back, although he has no way of getting out of his concrete trap, which has also become a trap for the attackers. A dead end locally that could give Putin a chance.negotiation weapon and more propaganda, but he chose to leave and had a handful of soldiers guard the facility (“a fly must not come out”) to use the others on the front lines of the other ongoing battles. Does all this mark a turning point in the war? The experts are divided. We heard four former Italian generals who observe the scenario and grasp elements that are also diametrically opposed. Here you are.
MARCO BERTOLINI
Former commander of the Joint Forces Summit Operational Command
“Mariupol marks a turning point, but the US is holding the peace hostage”
From a tactical point of view, the capture of Mariupol certainly marks a turning point, in the sense that two-thirds of Russia’s stated goals – namely Donbass, Crimea and Ukraine, which are not in NATO – have been achieved. Donbass comes under Russian control at this point, as does Crimea, so tactically, Putin’s war would have achieved its result. The problem is that those who support Zelenzky have no intention of achieving peace. Von der Layen said that “we have to win”, but that means Russia’s defeat. If these are the premises, it means that Europe, under pressure from the US, is fueling a continuous fight against Russia that could go on for a long time. The consequences are more political than tactical arguments. But from that point of view he had what he stated, the goal of Ukraine not being outside NATO has to be achieved through negotiations. But if there are no negotiations because the US doesn’t want it, the war goes on for who knows how much further. And that’s a scary thing.
ANTONIO LI GOBBI
Former NATO Director of General Staff Operations
“Azovstal as a bargaining chip and propaganda. But Putin is not enough “
Soldiers and civilians imprisoned in the Azov Valley are likely to be Putin’s bargaining chip and propaganda commodity. But despite the capture of Mariupol, with the loss of life and credibility it has suffered on the military and political levels, to act now would represent a defeat it may not survive. I am referring to the consolidation of NATO and the decision of Finland and Sweden to join it. In addition to the Black Sea coastline, I assume it is targeting a strip on Ukraine’s eastern border, the richest in natural resources, possibly with Kharkiv (it may have given up its aim of acquiring Odessa and joining Transnistria). I don’t think it has any intention of going north or west of the Dnieper, and it certainly wouldn’t have the means to do so. It must take into account Zelenskyy’s acquired prestige and massive US and NATO support for the Ukrainian armed forces. In those two months, however, Putin has made decisions that don’t always seem thoughtful, and that makes him more dangerous, especially when he feels his back is against the wall.
LEONARDO TRICARICO
Former Air Force Chief of Staff
“Putin has already lost, now Europe separates from the USA”
At the May 9 parade, he will speak to the Russians about victory. But in the Ukrainian campaign, Putin suffered a military defeat that attests that Moscow will no longer pose a threat in the future. The minimum targets set were not achieved. Mariupol did not fall either, soldiers and civilians did not return weapons. It is also doubtful whether his forces can hold what he has captured. This is how we experience the tragic game of the goose down, with the soldiers striking with more brutality and their leader who looks like Kim Jon-un, between drama for an ordinary ICBM or live streaming with Shoigu. The defeat is now questioning us. The military differentiation created with NATO lessens the danger in the East in the coming decades: From the US-led Scrum package, critical voices from European governments would now rise to call for an end to hostilities, rather than the determined campaign for totality Defeating Putin could take years.
VINCENZO CAMPORINI
Former Air Force and Defense Chief of Staff
“He leaves Kyiv, loses Odessa and is satisfied with Donbass”
We’ve been glued to the Mariupol Steelworks for days, but nothing has happened on the ground in the last 36 to 48 hours: the Russians are attacking, retreating, but there hasn’t been any sharp action suggesting anything other than what Putin said has to. If he has given up crushing the last resistance fighters in the fortress, it is because he has deployed significant parts of the forces there that are necessary for the occupation’s most tactical objective, the remnants of the two provinces of Donbass. So he decided to leave a small garrison behind to stop them getting out and send the others to the front to fight. However, where they don’t get great results for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is rain bogging down the armored vehicles. The sinking of the Moskva, which dealt a severe blow to Russian pride, also halted the plan of attack in Odessa. Putin does not have the strength to expand the conflict and is attacking areas where he is facing increasing armed resistance.