I am seeing a resurgence in posts, articles, op-eds, and editorials on how the Russian-Ukraine War might end, occasioned, presumably, by the changes in Russian strategy and, possibly, in Russian objectives. I am not privy to the inner workings of the Kremlin so I have no idea what Russia’s actual objectives are.
Three scenarios which appear conspicuously are:
- Russia consolidates its holdings in eastern and southern Ukraine which in combination with the effects of the sanctions on Russia’s economy leads Russia and Ukraine to negotiate a resolution. I think this is the most likely.
- Russia begins to lose outright in Ukraine which impels the Russians to escalate their efforts, potentially by using tactical nuclear weapons. In addition to being horrifically damaging to the Ukrainians it puts the West in a pickle.
- Russia begins to win outright in Ukraine which impels the West to take more strenuous actions, potentially including direct involvement.
We are presently being deluged with propaganda of all varieties at the most prodigious rate I can recall. It seems clear to me that the Russians’ propaganda led them to underestimate the Ukrainians. I hope that our propaganda does not lead us to overestimate them.
Here are Robert Farley’s observations from 1945:
The West (which in the context of this crisis has come to mean NATO, Japan, and other democratic countries in Europe and elsewhere) holds an enormous amount of leverage over the course of this conflict. NATO countries are underwriting the Ukrainian military, to the extent that Kyiv may enjoy greater capabilities in key areas than Moscow.
NATO countries are also deeply involved in the economic isolation of Russia, an isolation that in the long term will have devastating effects on the Russian economy. But to say that the West should use its influence in order to stop the fighting necessarily demands the question “what kind of peace?â€
Forcing Ukraine to surrender to Russian demands serves no relevant principles or judgment nor any kind of long-term anti-war position. Similarly, unconditional support of Ukraine poses dangers that may not be immediately apparent but that are readily noticeable on the horizon. \
The West should heed B.H. Liddell Hart’s injunction that “the purpose of war is to make a better peace.†We can only understand “a better peace†in reference to our values; the preservation of Ukraine and its democratic institutions, the re-opening of Ukrainian trade, the security of minority groups within Ukraine in both its occupied and unoccupied regions, the stabilization of Ukraine’s relationship with Russia, and probably a pathway to Russia’s reintegration into global society.
The West has enormous leverage and has much at stake; it should use that leverage judiciously produce the “better peace†that it desires.
Farley, like all of our Elites, is delusional. Their disconnect from reality is complete. The West has exactly zero leverage over Russia and its war in Ukraine. This is proven by the West’s (quiet, almost secret) capitulation over oil and gas imports and payment in rubles. Eventually, the US/NATO will sit down and shut up.
Scenario 1 is almost certain, although the negotiations will be over the terms of Ukraine’s surrender. Evidently, judging from recent comments by senior Russian generals, Russia will annex all the coastal oblasts from Transnistria through Odessa through to and including the Donbas. Additional territories in eastern Ukraine may also be annexed. Essentially all oblasts with substantial ethnic Russian populations. Transnistria itself, the separatist Russian enclave in Moldova, may also be annexed.
It is possible Poland and Hungary will annex former territories that were transferred to Ukraine by the Soviets (Galicia), and that Romania will annex the rump Moldova.
The other scenarios would lead to nuclear war between US/NATO and Russia, and will not happen. It is physically impossible for Russia to lose, and equally impossible for the West to intervene.
The big winner, other than Russia, is China, because the war will firmly cement their alliance, and make China the next hegemon. Mackinder’s nightmare come true. The fading of the US as an industrial/military power will be accelerated (yet more off-shoring), and the dollar will lose its position of the sole reserve currency. SWIFT will also become less important, as Eurasia, including India, move to other systems.
One important question, Will India, Pakistan, and China resolve their issues? The territorial issues are really minimal.
I disagree. They’ll maintain a discreet silence about their own complicity in the war but they’ll continue to provide the Ukrainians with weapons, training, intelligence, etc. indefinitely.
I also disagree that Russia will win anything in this. In particular Russia’s performance in Ukraine is telling the Chinese just how weak Russia is. I don’t believe that will strengthen the relationship between the two countries. Indeed, I think it increases the likelihood of conflict between them.
I am looking at the following things which will shape the outcome.
Is it turning more into a WW1 or the latter stages of Korean War where it is hard to move? This is too early to say because the big offensives in this part of the world occur from June/August.
Will the conflict expand? The longer it goes; the more likely there will be problems in the Caucasus/Syria which draws in many other powers.
There a “everyone loses†outcome that’s possible. In fact; you could argue that is already the case today.