As opposition leader Alexei Navalny was laid to rest in
Moscow this week,
Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped up his rhetoric against Europe
and the United States,
warning in his annual State of the Nation address that
the West face the prospect of nuclear conflict if it
intervenes more directly in the war in Ukraine.
An apparent reference to French President Emmanuel
Macron's comment this week that the possibility of sending Western
troops cannot be ruled out.
This latest threat comes as Russia makes gains on the
battlefield,
with Putin saying his military firmly holds the initiative in
Ukraine after Kiev's recent retreat from the eastern town of
Abdivka Joining me now,
Fox News strategic senior strategic analyst and retired four-star General
Jack Keane.
He's chairman of the Institute for the Study of War.
General Keane, good to see you as always.
So first, what do you make of Emmanuel Macron's comments
on NATO troops potentially being sent into Ukraine?
Was it a wise thing to do?
Well, it's a surprising comments,
and certainly I would imagine his fellow NATO partners there
were a little surprised and raised their eyebrows about it
as well.
Certainly he would have to coordinate with them given the
implications it would mean to NATO.
I kind of like the idea that it kind of
pokes at Putin a little bit,
forces him to think and remind them,
you know, what's really out there in terms of how
much NATO could dominate him if they chose to.
That's that's for sure. And I think when the Ukrainians
look at it,
I'm not sure they want the troops on the ground
fighting.
They would certainly take
France's air power that that because that would be a
game changer.
All right. So Putin's response threatening again,
nuclear weapons. At this stage,
it's an old threat, a familiar threat.
Is it something that we,
I guess we have to take something like that seriously.
But is it something that you think is realistic?
No, I don't think it is.
Putin. Putin is not reckless and he's a brute and
he's a killer for sure.
But, you know, he's pretty methodical about how he goes
about decision making
and and listen, I he's saying this,
Paul, because it's work. That's a fact.
I mean, with the fact that he's been brandishing nuclear
weapons for the last two years has forced this administration
not to deliver the advanced weapons when the Ukrainians requested
them. And it's the Europeans who finally realized that Putin
wasn't serious about this.
It makes no sense because there has been escalation and
obviously no use of nuclear weapons,
no movement of tactical nuclear weapons.
And it's the Europeans who got on to the bluff
and they forced us to provide tanks,
Highmar's longer range weapon systems that finally the Atacams and
eventually F sixteens all forced on us by the Europeans
ignoring the threat of these advanced weapons could produce a
nuclear response by Russia. Most everyone looking at this while
solely they're going to continue to do it because it's
had some impact on the Biden administration,
I don't believe it's realistic.
OK, so militarily right now,
where does this, this war stand?
How, how, how much is
Russia on the offensive here,
as most people seem to think it is?
Yeah. What's happened, Paul, is the Ukrainians are certainly are
on the defense for obvious reasons,
their husband and the resources they have.
Certainly some of this ammunition needs to be replenished that
it's not.
And obviously what's happening in the in the halls of
the Congress are certainly an issue.
So the the Russians have taken advantage of that.
They're conducting limited offensive operations in four different places.
They've been able to seize
at Davica and and like they may seize another but
it's limited.
Then there's the casualties are staggering.
What has happened on both sides,
neither side has been able to restore
maneuver. And what I mean by that you you see
the Russians taking Abdika,
but what they've not been able to do,
they culminated right there with used casualties.
What they haven't been able to do once they achieve
A penetration,
bring follow on forces through that penetration to exploit it
and take more ground and territory that is restoring maneuver.
We're in positional warfare right now and probably will remain
so.
I think the Russians are looking at this very closely
to see if the opportunity is there and do they
really have the capability in the spring or the summer
to conduct a more major offensive without
penetration achieved and follow on forces.
They have never demonstrated that capability in two years of
the war and if certainly that's something that the Ukrainians
struggled with as well.
That is kind of where we are.
But but but general, I mean if if we don't
get those artillery munitions to Ukraine and we don't give
them more air defenses,
isn't there a chance that the Russians could make a
breakthrough?
Yeah, if if the summer comes and the and the
artillery munitions are not there
and the air defense systems,
they need increased air defense systems,
we will see the Russians make gains there.
There's no doubt about it.
And look at the Defense Department seems to be on
the cusp of finally giving the Ukrainians the long range
attack.
M's missiles that go 300 miles,
a unitary weapon, not the cluster munitions.
So the Ukrainians can hold the targets in Crimea at
Bay F Sixteens are due to come into Ukraine,
the beginning of 61 of them out of the Netherlands
and Belgium in June.
And if the rest of the F16 starts to roll
in,
the tide changes. But they can't do it without the
US package of weapons systems,
and the Congress has to approve that.
Otherwise, we're on the on the beginning cusp of losing
Ukraine starting in the summer.