interested, we ve also got this. interested, we ve also got this development with the rushtish group, who were subunit of wagner, and they have also said that they will no longer in ukraine. what do you think that tells us, and what does all of this mean essentially for russia on the battlefield in ukraine? 50 russia on the battlefield in ukraine? , , russia on the battlefield in ukraine? , ., ukraine? so this is a loss for them, and ukraine? so this is a loss for them, and prigozhin - ukraine? so this is a loss for them, and prigozhin was - ukraine? so this is a loss for| them, and prigozhin was this intense mix of. he was aggressive, he was a risk taker, he looked for short term gains, he was wealthy. he was all the things the russian military isn t, and he really provided a spark to their fighting. it s good that he is off the battlefield, it s good for the ukrainians. off the battlefield, it s good forthe ukrainians. i off the battlefield, it s good for the ukrainians. i think it
i think it s good long term, you know, as they press forward with their counteroffensive. and i also think all of this introduces a level of disquiet and scepticism orfear, paranoia, inside the russian military as they don t know exactly who is who and which way small units are going to play their hand. so i do think overall this is a positive for the ukrainians and a distraction, if not a negative, for putin. so let me ask you this, then, rearadmiral. with all that in mind, what do you think western allies should be doing now to help support ukraine and capitalise on this moment? well, that s a great that s the actual best question, because there is an opportunity here. the united states and its western allies have to provide the long range artillery that ukraine has been asking for. in the case of the united states, it s the attack drone system.
that they were from prigozhin. yes, and so i m interested we ve also got this development with the rusich group, who were sub unit of wagner, and they have also said that they will no longer fight in ukraine. what do you think that tells us, and what does all of this mean essentially for russia on the battlefield in ukraine? so this is a loss for them. and prigozhin was this intense mix of he was aggressive, he was a risk taker, he looked for short term gains, he was wealthy. he was all the things the russian military isn t, and he really provided a spark to their fighting. it s good that he s off the battlefield, it s good for the ukrainians. i think it s good long term, you know, as they press forward with their counteroffensive. and i also think all of this introduces a level of disquiet and scepticism orfear, paranoia, inside the russian
it s good that he s off the battlefield, it s good for the ukrainians. i think it s good long term, you know, as they press forward with their counteroffensive. and i also think all of this introduces a level of disquiet and scepticism orfear, paranoia, inside the russian military as they don t know exactly who is who and which way small units are going to play their hand. so i do think overall this is a positive for the ukrainians and a distraction, if not a negative, for putin. so let me ask you this, then, rearadmiral. with all that in mind, what do you think western allies should be doing now to help support ukraine and capitalise on this moment? well, that s a great that s the actual best question, because there is an opportunity here. the united states and its western allies have to provide the long range artillery that ukraine has been asking for. in the case of the united
the battlefield in ukraine is yellow this is a loss for them. and prigozhin was aggressive, he was a risk taker. he looked for short term gains. he risk taker. he looked for short-term rains. . , risk taker. he looked for short-term rains. ., , ., , risk taker. he looked for short-term rains. .,, ., , .,, risk taker. he looked for short-term rains. ., , ., gains. he was wealthy. he was all the thins gains. he was wealthy. he was all the things the gains. he was wealthy. he was all the things the russian gains. he was wealthy. he was all the things the russian military - the things the russian military isn t. and he really provided a spark their fighting. isn t. and he really provided a spark theirfighting. it isn t. and he really provided a spark their fighting. it is good that he is off the battlefield. it s good for ukrainians. i think it s good for ukrainians. i think it s good long term, as they press forward with their counteroffensive. and i also think all of this introduces