Russian aggression in Ukraine is slowly entering the fourth phase.

In the first, Russia tried to overthrow the government of Volodymyr Zelensky and invade Ukraine for three days.

During the second phase, it tried again to occupy all of Ukraine, or at least its eastern part, including the capital Kiev.

In the third phase, after the defeat in the north, Russia directed its forces towards the southeast and south of Ukraine.

Now follows the fourth phase, probably crucial of the war, Telegrafi reports.

If Ukraine manages to preserve its freedom and territorial integrity, Russia may withdraw and give up further display of its already diminished power.

But if the conflict continues, the chances of a war between NATO and Russia increase, writes Johnson

University expert Eliot A. Cohen, who was an adviser to the US State Department from 2007 to 2009.

The West now faces big decisions.

Those pushing for solutions are probably making a big mistake because decisive moves are needed now, the expert said.

Russia saw "not even on the sleeve"

In conflicts of this kind, victory can be achieved by the side that is better positioned on the battlefield.

Even though Ukraine is hiding the exact losses of the war, which it should, it is certainly not easy to lose so many civilians, so much city destruction.

Soldiers are not superheroes with special powers and they need all of the West's arsenal.

The Russian military, whose tactics and strategies have so far proved wrong, can achieve success through two things: use large amounts of firepower and be even more brutal with civilians.

If it has so far lost (whether killed, missing or captured) a quarter of its active military forces in the conflict, it is probably on the verge of collapse.

This relies on reports coming from battlefields showing abandoned equipment, soldiers killing their commanders, desperate attempts to recruit a new military force.

The Russian military has not even decided, let alone maintained control of the airspace and in terms of battle on the ground - it has already used at least three-quarters of its ground combat forces.

So the question is whether there is more "not even on the sleeve".

Can Putin order an attack that would destroy his military?

How is it that Putin is launching new offensives in eastern and southern Ukraine?

Perhaps neither Putin, nor his top advisers, nor even high-ranking commanders have an accurate picture of the situation on the ground.

They know they have received numerous blows, but they do not have the true meaning of battlefield.

Given that they do not properly care for their wounded soldiers and leaving the bodies of the dead, they may not care about the price civilians are paying because of sanctions.

In a system based on lies and corruption, they receive or transmit false optimistic information.

After trying to promote their propaganda in the West, they have now fallen victim to it themselves.

So Putin can order attacks that, if confronted by a well-equipped Ukrainian enemy, could destroy his army.

The West must ensure that things go exactly that way.

Weak commitment of the West

So far, Europe has not shown a united stance.

The German Chancellor was hesitant, aggressive Britain, Poland and the Baltic states showed a heroic attitude, while Hungary, Austria and some other countries were ambivalent or worse.

The United States has been quite engaged, sending many portable missiles, equipment and other military weapons to Ukraine.

US President Joe Biden and some of his top officials did not hesitate to speak openly about the situation in Ukraine.

But in other respects, the US has failed.

The administration has not used the almost unanimous support for Ukraine in Congress to secure much larger sums for the Ukrainian military.

She was too slow to hand over more serious weapons.

In terms of sanctions, the United States has sanctioned some Russian banks, but not most.

No one has issued an ultimatum to multinational corporations - you can do business in the United States or Russia, but not in both countries.

"Ukrainians have shown that they can afford much more than others thought."

The US did not make some significant symbolic gestures for the war period.

If the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson could visit Kiev (as did Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission and the heads of government of other countries), so could US Secretary of State Antony Blinken or Vice President Kamala. Harris.

If other countries could reopen embassies in Ukraine, so would the United States, which should never have closed them.

The United States was unwilling to take any steps because of its understanding of Russia's military strategy.

They must acknowledge that the Ukrainians are now world experts in the fight against the Russians - not the United States.

Namely, they showed that they can afford much more than others thought.

And if American expertise is already needed, it can be secured without direct US involvement in the conflict.

Before Pearl Harbor, American volunteers, known as the Flying Tigers, went to China to fight P-40 fighters against the Japanese Air Force.

The group has done this with the support of the US government, and something similar can be done with Ukraine - if it wills.

If the West reacts properly, the Russian army can be defeated

If the Soviet Union could deploy thousands of advisers to North Vietnam in the midst of the Vietnam War without provoking a nuclear conflict, the US could send its advisers to western Ukraine, or at least Poland, to train Ukrainian troops.

Instead, they should come to Mississippi to learn how to use Switchblade drones.

The situation in Ukraine may increase.

If the Russians use chemical weapons, the United States should consider imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

It's crucial what Europe and the United States do in the coming weeks.

The data show that the Russian army can be completely defeated if the Ukrainian forces are well equipped.