the conflict began in 2014 when russia took crimea. now ukraine is trying to retake the russian occupied peninsula where moscow stationed its black sea fleet. ukraine attacks military targets there almost on a daily basis. overall, the ukrainian counter offensive is progressing slowly. in his recent visit to the there almost on a daily basis. overall, the ukrainian counter us. president slansky appeared to have gotten a commitment by the us government for the delivery of attacks missiles which the ukrainian army can use to attack more targets in crimea. and the first american abrams tanks already arrived in ukraine. so on to the point, we ask us attacks missiles and abrams tanks is russia losing crimea? welcome to

this week's to the point. i'm javier. it's good to have you with us and i'm joined by this week's guests, catherine kluver ashbrook is a german american political scientist and a senior adviser for germany's beman foundation. thomas is a journalist specializing in international defense and security policy and ben hodges, former commander us army europe and chairman of the glob future security and defense council to all of you. welcome. thank you very much for being with us and thomas, i'd like to start with you. because we're constantly trying to assess the state of this war. crimea seems to be an increasingly frequent target for the ukrainian military and they now seem to have hit the russian black sea fleet severely. how significant is that? that's pretty significant. it shows the ability of the ukrainians to hit

targets in crimea, especially the headquarters of the russian fleet significant. it shows the ability of the ukrainians to hit there. and uh so ukraine makes clear it's willing and able to hit target there and going forward to achieve military progress with the help of western weapons. is this new or is this something that has been possible before it has been possible before? but the scale is becoming different. obviously, it's not really confirmed. they used british storm shadow cruise missiles to hit this headquarters. this means those long range weapons from the west will make a difference katherine ukraine claims to have killed russia's black sea fleet commander. how credible are these reports? and does it make a difference moving forward in this war? do you think do you have a crystal ball? i think it's been a difference moving forward in this war? do you think it's been really difficult, i think even for journalists, you

know, on the ground to confirm what the reality is i mean, we have, we're in the middle of an know, on the ground to confirm what the reality is information war, all the same. the russians have posted not one but now two videos off this ad sort of seemingly alive and well, who knows when these are dated et cetera, et cetera. if in fact, the attack, you seemingly alive and well, who knows when these are dated know, we're talking about injured personnel and if this admiral in fact was killed, it, it would be a huge hit on russian morale. and of course, that's why you in fact was killed, it, it would be a huge see the information war ramp up the way it has on the russian side. and it also has a tactical and, and sort of strategic implications as well. it would demand a reordering of some of the command structure out of sevastopol. it is, it would be a very significant hit. can we confirm this independently at this moment in time? no, we cannot. it is always very, very difficult now, ben ukraine is trying to sell the idea very clearly that the counter offensive is going well, but we've also seen significant russian attacks especially on the port city

of odessa. how are things looking for the russian army from your perspective? uh i would hate to be a russian private sitting in a trench right now knowing that from your perspective? uh i would hate to be a i have a terrible logistics system behind me. uh and commanders don't care about me and looking at ukraine every week increasing in its capability with 54 nations supporting it um the attacks that, that you're describing that have happened uh against uh crimea are part of this counteroffensive. the counter offensive is so much more than the, than just the ground assault. what's happening with the trenches and the counter offensive is so much more than the, than just mine fields. that's an important part, but it's only a part the ukrainian general staff is conducting what nato calls and what the us calls multi domain operations where you integrate the effects of land, sea, air cyber information special forces. so this hit on the headquarters was not just

a coincidence. this is the result of intelligence sabotage, commando raids, destroying radar. uh the hit on the, on the dry dock in sevastopol, which is a very important hit because it destroyed maintenance capability as well as a submarine and a ship. and then the headquarters and catherine is exactly right. it's not so much the loss of a commander, whether or not the admirals killed, he can be replaced, much more difficult to, to replace 30 staff officers um i mean, that is a real hit on the ability of the black sea fleet. so finally, this is about making crimea untenable for russian forces, the air force ability of the black sea fleet. so finally, this is the navy logistics make it untenable as a necessary step to liberating. however, that might come at a very high human cost if we believe the russian side, i'm just going to confront you with this. the russian defense minister

said that only in september, the ukrainian army had 17,000 casualties. what do you make of these types of statements well, first of all, the kremlin would be the last source i would use for any uh information, but there's no doubt that ukraine is, is suffering casualties. of course they are. but imagine the human cost if russia wins i mean, the ukrainians know they are fighting for their survival as a nation as a state and they literally are trying to protect their families. so the number you decided that's about the number of ukrainian children who have been deported out of ukraine into russia. so i think ukrainians are not going to stop. they definitely say so been deported out of ukraine into russia. so i think and some experts agree they need to because this war been deported out of ukraine into russia. so i think will probably be here to stay. and that resistance and a constant supply of ammunition are decisive. that's why the will probably be here to stay. and that resistance and ukrainian president traveled to north america to seek wider support for his defense. but things weren't as easy as last time, don't be fooled by the hugs and smiling faces

vladimir zelinsky was hard at work during his trip to north america gathering military and political support from the global community. he gave a passionate speech at the un followed by a frustrating encounter with the security council from there he traveled to washington dc where he was welcomed at the white house and then made a quick stop to he traveled to washington dc where he was welcomed at canada. defense minister. tanks are already in marine to reinforce our actions against the capabilities. this statement could be alluding to further weapon deliveries from the united states which is apparently prepared to deliver attack ends. these missiles are capable to further weapon deliveries from the united states which is of flying up to 300 kilometers. would this weapon system be a game changer in the war against russia and

katherine watching that? what do you make of slansky trip and his ability to gather more support, more money, more katherine watching that? what do you make of slansky trip weapons and more sanctions. well, i was in washington at the same time as the ukrainian president and i can say that it was a decidedly mixed resonance out of this because in as much as he talked to republican lawmakers on the hill, quite, aside from the congressional speech we see now that ukraine is becoming a political play ball, not just ahead of the 2024 elections and the second republican debate we had in the last couple of hours. but as a matter of course, in the actual debate on whether we can keep the american government open and functioning, kevin mccarthy, the leader of the house republicans is pinning his own political fortune on whether or not and functioning, kevin mccarthy, the leader of the house republicans the 25 billion or 24 $billion billion aid package is going to be in what senate and congress senate and house actually sit down to negotiate on whether to keep

the us government open. and i think that sends a house actually sit down to negotiate on whether to keep very dangerous signal that should put all the rest of the western alliance on alert that these issues around consistent american support won't just come to haunt us come the election in 24 but could become a very volatile moment in the continuity of the western alliance far earlier. and that not everything of course can be decided in the white house. how significant would it be if there is not, let's not say no support but less support. for the ukrainian army coming here. well, the ukrainians are dependent not, let's not say no support but less support. for on western supplies. it relates to ammunition for artillery, but it also relates to new weapon systems. we've talked about that we've seen the attacks, but the problem is i'm not sure whether there ban has an idea which version will be delivered. um there's talk about the 300 kilometer range of the attackers in the usual version, but there's also talk of the cluster munition version which has much

less reach what the ukraine needs is ammunition weapon systems with a long range. so the details will make a difference. i'm going to test that question specifically to ben ben just to start with the two weapon systems that we've talked about so far. i'm from costa rica, a country with no army. could you explain to viewers who are maybe not acquainted with weapon systems? what difference does it make for ukraine to have say abrams tanks? well the abrams tank itself, um it's the best tank in the world. uh the german leopard is exceptional. the british challenger. these are very good systems, but what matters most um are the people inside the tank and then how these tanks are actually employed? um i'm sure the ukrainians will make good use of the abrams. uh there's enough for one battalion, 31 tanks in a, in a ukrainian tank battalion. um uh i'm sure they also will protect for one battalion, 31 tanks in a, in a ukrainian

the location and time of their deployment employment uh until they're, they're ready as well. but, you know, 31 tanks is not gonna change the outcome of the war, but it obviously is going to help ukraine. however, seems to say that that it will change or it will be decisive. let's talk about the attack against missiles. then thomas ukraine has been asking for them for months and months will that really change the course of the war? well first of all, we have to say there is no real single weapons system which will be a game changer that has been when we talked about the tanks, when we talk about short distance missile systems, everything will contribute but it's not a single system which will completely uh lead to a different outcome of the war is the whole system. as ben put it in multi domain operations

everything is of importance. and when we talk about the attacks, it's again, it's the reach which the ukrainians want and which will make a difference if they get the long range version. what exactly militarily would that imply to have this long range? this would mean that ukraine is would be able to reach logistic lines, supply points, command centers, all this stuff way beyond the range they have at the moment. so when we look at crimea, there is a lot of possible targets for these long range at the moment. so when we look at crimea, there weapons. this also applies to the discussion about german cruise missiles at to wars. it's um sevastopol, which we have seen would, wouldn't have been possible without this long range systems. and also we are talking about the bridge, which is a choke point for the supply of crimea. if ukraine is able to reach this bridge and to destroy

it, this will really would make a difference. catherine, we've seen ukraine's allies very reluctant to deliver these types of weapons. do you think it has to do with the fact that they would go into territory that ukraine didn't weapons. do you think it has to do with the have control on just a year ago? well, here's the thing, you know, it's a sort of k a would a should a piece. i mean, we've seen this now what irritates me and i think many of us who look at this very closely is the fact that we don't seem to be learning out of our debates around when weapons are delivered and the kind of sequencing and conversely the kind of trust that we can put in when weapons are delivered and the kind of sequencing and the ukrainians. thomas mentioned the cluster of munitions, you know the americans didn't deliver cluster munitions quite independently of attacks delivery system. but until they had written guarantees by the ukrainians and tara, the ukrainians are using that kind of munition system very effectively. we need to be supporting the ukrainians such that they can have agility, such that they can have independence in their decision making and such that

we trust their tactical ambitions. and this is where we're having difficulties across the transatlantic divide. the americans feel that there shouould have been a slightly different tactical approach taken but this is why the sequencing of the zelinsky visit plus the sevastopol attack technically should offer very powerful political arguments in washington, at least in the defense circles because plus the sevastopol attack technically should offer very powerful political it proves that they can use the british and french plus the sevastopol attack technically should offer very powerful political systems very effectively to the ambition of what the americans have actually laid out. you know, the americans have been very skeptical of effectively this, you know, this east and southern flank, the fight around bamut, the americans would have rather seen a surge into the south outright. it would have cost a lot of ukrainian lives would have been very difficult to hold domestically. but that's the kind of work we need to be doing and fundamentally, we need to learn out of our experience, poor negotiations around the f-16. general. ben has said a number of times you would never send american troops into a land war like

we have it without the appropriate air cover. we need to continue to make it flex, make the ukrainian army be flexible and agile. and when i use this word we, i mean, the western coalition which above all needs to stick together. and certainly ukraine is trying to make that point as well, especially announcing advances in its counter offensive. after weeks of stalemate on the front, things seem to be going better for ukraine, important tactical gains have been made on several fronts and decisive weeks ahead of the european winter. slow and steady is the key concept behind the ukrainian counter offensive which finally managed to break through russia's third line of defense. last week, it appears to have worked in tarmac, located in the southeast region of zappos. russia's regional logistical hub. ukraine has also reported success from the fighting around but their base blow was to a russian black sea fleet headquarters in sevastopol where

ukraine is reporting a death toll of more than 30 russian officers. latest in a growing number of strikes on occupy crimea with the objective of making symbolic and strategic russian officers. latest in a growing number of strikes on gains in the peninsula that lies at the heart of russian officers. latest in a growing number of strikes on the conflict. but can ukraine leverage the success to create a meaningful advantage or are we approaching another winter of grinding deadlock? and i'm going to toss that question to a meaningful advantage or are we approaching another winter of ben. do you recognize, speaking specifically about the front lines in the south? do you recognize a strategy by the ukrainian military or are they just taking whatever is possible in the south? do you recognize a strategy by the now, this is all about crimea. crimea is the decisive terrain of this war. uh ukraine knows it will never be safe and secure and they'll never be able to rebuild their economy as long as russia occupies crimea and be safe and secure and they'll never be able to the russians don't care about donbas except that, that gives

them the land bridge that connects rostov down to crimea uh so if the, if the ukrainians are able to liberate crimea or at least make it untenable, unusable for russian forces, then they're gonna win this war. uh the land component of the counter offensive is aimed at um severing that land bridge. that's why places like tok are so important because once they get there and then they can bring up uh other long range weapons. uh exactly so important because once they get there and then they as thomas said to, to be able to go after russian logistics. and once you have severed the land bridge either by fire or by occupation, then the only thing that's left is the kurs bridge and now crimea is in a real fix. and so this entire counter offensive is aimed at isolation of crimea, making it untenable and eventually liberating it. now, long range precision fire are the

key here, whether it's in a or to more storm shadow or scalp or the ground launch small diameter bombs drones, whatever it is, the capability that the ukrainians need is to be able to pound sevastopol the air base at psaki, the logistics hub at jay. and if this is to be able to pound sevastopol the air base is happening two or three times a day, week after week, there's no way that the russian navy can continue to operate from there or the air force can operate from there. taking back crimea always sounds like such an ambitious goal. thomas, do, do you agree that this is a realistic goal that, that we could be seeing? well maybe we should not focus too much on only talking about a military conquest of crimea it's always talked about could the ukrainian army take crimea? i think that's the wrong approach. could the ukrainians be in a position to force the russians to talk about crimea? to, to start

negotiations about crimea? i think that's the, the, the realistic point to talk about. i, i don't think that we'll see, uh, ukrainian tanks rolling down to the bridge. that's not the point. do you, do you agree, ben? is that not the point? well, thomas is a journalist, i've respected for years, but of course, i completely disagree with him on this. uh the, the, the, the point is not our tanks gonna roll down to the kurz bridge the point is, are the russians going be forced, the russian military forced to leave crimea, that, that is the key as long as the black sea fleet is able to sit there and sevastopol and they have no problem launching uh uh caliber missiles against ukrainian cities and the power grid. and look, i uh i overestimated the willingness of the west to provide what was needed. um and therefore i projected that crimea would be liberated earlier then

obviously, it's not gonna happen that way. um my president has got to lay out what our objective is. that's the thing that's missing here. if the president were to say, uh and talk to the american people like they were adults and say, look, it's in our interest that ukraine is successful, it's in our interest that ukraine is able to eject russia back to the 1991 borders. it's in europe's advantage that this happens and we want ukraine able to eject russia back to the 1991 borders. it's to win. that's our objective, not this empty. uh we're with you for as long as it takes. uh so if we say we want to win, then there's no more excuses about how many attacks or how long it takes to train an f-16 pilot or how much fuel uh abrams tank burns. and then i think we'll see the counselor um, agree to provide tourists. i mean, they uh abrams tank burns. and then i think we'll see pretty much have said that and there'll be no more uh abrams tank burns. and then i think we'll see excuses about tourists as well. but catherine, why is it so difficult to sell to the american people, to the american people? because the american people don't generally focus on

on foreign policy. and ukraine is a very long, you american people? because the american people don't generally focus on know, very far away, but it is remarkable that we've now had two primary debates for the republican party where ukraine has launched a major screaming match on a stage of people who would be lining up to possibly be a republican candidate. and it's interesting what general ben just said because vice president pence again, who used to be part of a trump administration where ukraine became a play ball of a first impeachment process, yelled at vivek ramaswami part of a trump administration where ukraine became a play in the debebate yesterday to say, look, you know, we cannot, we cannot lose ukraine to russia. russia will be at our, you know, front door. but what is happening now is that the entire ukraine question is being manipulated manipulated politically, particularly in the republic party. and exactly as general ben said, one would wish then that in the course of a fraught election year, which will be a difficult moment. also, in terms of geopolitics, we have a president that makes these goals exceptionally clear, holds the senate

together and that we're no longer using the ukraine question as a political and financial play ball, which is currently what's happening in domestic politics and that it's not sidelined and attached to a china question as if the kind of weapon systems we're currently deploying. and again, let's underscore that this is an extremely cheap war for the united states, defending american liberty in ukraine is unbelievably cheap. it's the most efficient and cheap war that the united states states, defending american liberty in ukraine is unbelievably cheap. it's has fought in modern times or has been engaged with in modern times. and that's what, that's the narrative it needs to stick to because what's the wider stake is of course, the systems architecture that we have long built needs to stick to because what's the wider stake is our wealth and security on. and if that becomes increasingly part of a narrative, and if the gop reaganites can hold their party's feet to the fire, we'd be in a much better position. is that going to happen? i don't know, it's an extremely volatile situation politically in the united states. you were mentioning the crystal ball before we

will have a little bit of time to take a united states. you were mentioning the crystal ball before we brief look into the future to, there's a lot of talk about the urgency of this counter offensive to be successful. whatever that means, by the time the winter starts in europe, do you think that's going to happen? well successful. whatever that means, by the time the winter starts we, we have to see when winter comes and before that we have a mud period which makes any movement on the battlefield extremely difficult. but as general ben pointed out in, in, in the beginning, and we're talking about a multidimensional offensive, we are focusing too much on little territorial gains. so everybody looks at how many villages have been taken or retaken or whatever. that's not the point the point is. what's the overall picture? what's the logistic lines? what's the headquarters, what's the communications? what's the movement the point is. what's the overall picture? what's the logistic of the black sea fleet and all these things? and the point is. what's the overall picture? what's the logistic i think, um on uh on the front line, on on, on the different front lines and in certain villages

yes, this will be a problem, but the overall offensive will go on. general ben. do you agree on that do you think ukraine is not really running out of time? as so many people say, i do agree with thomas on this. uh look, this is the year 2023 um we used to in the old days in the 18th and 19th century, armies would go into winter quarters because they depended on horses and oxen to pull wagons and artillery and so they could only do campaigns when you had grass available when there's no grass available because the winter, they go into winter quarters. now, in 2023 of course, we can go uh around the clock um every day. uh but it is a fact that this part of ukraine, the soil when it's wet is a very nasty type of mud. so it will restrict some ground movement. but the ukrainians know they cannot, they cannot

hesitate at all. they cannot give the russians one day to try and strengthen defenses or regroup, resupply rebuild their formations. so i anticipate that they will maintain pressure using a multi dimensional multi domain approach and not give the formations. so i anticipate that they will maintain pressure using russians any chance. we'll see how that goes. that's all the time we have for this edition of to the point. thank you to all three of you and especially the time we have for this edition of to the for you for watching. remember that you can always watch our youtube videos as well. just look for dw news