Outcomes

At RealClearDefense Robert Umholtz sees two possible outcomes for the war in Ukraine:

If the war continues, there are two likely outcomes. One is the Russian body count of lost soldiers will continue to climb, the mobilization will resume, and the people will react by forcing an end of the war through protest or regime change as they did during World War I. The other possible outcome, and certainly even worse than the first, is that Ukraine begins to take Crimea back and Putin feels the only way to avoid defeat is a scorched earth policy. In this case, he is likely to use a tactical nuclear weapon, thus preventing Ukrainian victory and destroying Crimea in the process. Diplomacy has not worked yet in this conflict. I hope I am wrong and there is a third option. I recommend we all pray that the third option materializes, but if history is to be a guide the outcome is likely listed above.

That follows a lengthy exposition of the history between the two countries. He draws the correct conclusion from that history: the Russians and the Ukrainians are actually quite similar which does not bode particularly well. As he notes: “nobody out-sucks the Russians”.

However, I do have some quibbles with his exposition. For example, he characterizes Russia’s taking Crimea as “symbolic”:

Russia achieved a symbolic victory when it invaded and captured Crimea with little resistance from the international community, but Ukraine is likely to continue fighting at this point until Crimea is back under Ukrainian control. The history discussed above proves each nation is willing to suffer unimaginable loss before relinquishing the land they believe is rightfully theirs.

He’s wrong about that for several reasons including the peninsula’s substantial Russian population and its strategic importance.

I also think he leaves out an important third option: Ukraine loses enough people that it can’t continue with organized resistance.