I’m glad that somebody besides me is thinking of this stuff. At The Hill Robert Manning writes:
The next phase of the war could go on for weeks or months. Despite the demonstrated failures of the Russian military, short of direct U.S. or NATO intervention, it would be difficult for Kyiv to completely drive Russian forces out of all Ukraine’s sovereign territory.
Two other possible scenarios are 1) weeks of bombing by Putin seeking a Ukrainian surrender and 2) Ukrainian military efforts stymying Putin, resulting in a protracted stalemate and a frozen conflict. It is conceivable that under the latter scenario, the damage from economic and financial sanctions to Russian life after a year or so could force Russia to agree to a compromise Kyiv would accept, perhaps some variation of the Minsk 2 deal resulting in a neutral Ukraine.
All wars end. Clearly, the current circumstances are not ripe for diplomacy. The moment for serious negotiations will arrive when the battlefield situation tilts decisively in one direction. Even total victory brings new risks. Will the outcome be a stable peace, or a tenuous, vindictive result, fueling anger and resentment that seeds the next conflict?
offers the following criticism:
Putin’s savagery and false narratives make it difficult to contain moral outrage and the urge to be rid of him. But repeated emotional, off-the-cuff outbursts from President Biden about war crimes, genocide and that Putin “can’t remain in power†are a luxury a major power can’t afford. Such crimes, however apparent, have precise legal definitions to adjudicate. Pushing a rat into a corner, especially one with nuclear weapons, is dangerous.
and proposes this:
In the case of Ukraine, it is not too soon to begin planning for: war crimes tribunals; Ukraine reconstruction (estimates: $220-540 billion); Russian reparations and what actions it must take to lift sanctions; Ukraine defining a Swiss-type armed “neutrality†as well as post-war U.S./NATO – Russian force postures – and post-Putin change in Russia. Biden has been too passive in this regard.
At present practically everything we are hearing about the war in Ukraine is Ukrainian propaganda. While we may hope that it is true, I have no way of knowing whether it is or not. Presumably, nearly everything the Russians are hearing about the war in Ukraine is Russian propaganda. Maybe Vladimir Putin believes it; maybe not. That, too, I have no way of knowing.
IMO it is a reasonable guess that President Putin and the Russian leadership have been taken by surprise by how hard a nut the Ukrainians are to crack, taken in by their own propaganda. I hope we don’t find ourselves in a comparable position.
I agree that the Russian’s underestimated the ferocity and determination of the Ukronazis, but Russia will win this war. A neutral Ukraine and the Minsk accords are now off the table. Ukraine will be partitioned, and it is possible that Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania will share in the spoils. They all have claims on parts of western Ukraine. Also, there are reports that Romanian troops in disguise are already in Moldova, which Romania intends to annex one way or another.
The main problem is that the US/EU/NATO keeps escalating its material support for Ukraine as well as its rhetoric. There even are calls in the Congress by senior members for US/NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine.
Western Elites have convinced themselves that the Russian economy is small and weak, that the Russian military is poorly trained, equipped and led, that its war stocks are small and rapidly depleting, and that it has sustained massive casualties and material losses. So, our Elites think that they can do anything with impunity, that Russia has to submit to an overwhelmingly superior West.
US policies convinced Russia that an invasion of Ukraine was necessary for Russia’s survival. Now, US/EU/NATO policy is pushing Russia towards a world war that would cover all of Europe and Canada and the US. If we have not already done so, we are rapidly approaching the situation were a world war is unavoidable.
It is wise to wait and see.
The on the ground reports has indications the Russians are fighting using very different tactics / operations compared to the first few weeks of the war.
One thing I have noodled about is “was Putin underestimating Ukraine’s armed forces”. Another possibility is Putin and the Russian leadership knew Ukraine’s increasing capability, was alarmed and decided to take action now while the power balance was still favorable instead of waiting until later and it became prohibitively risky to use force.
As an example, Ukraine and the UK signed a deal in 2021 to build multiple naval bases and modern frigates. Considering what we saw with the Moskva; if that had come to fruition within a couple of years; Russia would not have naval supremacy in a conflict with Ukraine.
In further support to the argument, Ukraine’s increasing capabilities and determination were known to the Russians. Anatoly Karlin, a noted pro-Russian blogger; had charted for years that disparity between the 2 militaries were closing.
The main piece of evidence for Russia underestimating Ukraine is their withdrawal from Kyiv/Kiev. But one could make an argument that the tactics/operations in those initial few weeks which were abnormal from normal Russian doctrine was an attempt to force a negotiation. The implication is Western observers have mistaken Russian underperformance for what was a political objective. And now that negotiations are dead, the Russians have switched objectives and their military may well perform very differently then what NATO have seen so far… (indeed, refer to the comment about on-the-ground reports).
Here is an example of the degree of delusion and stupidity endemic in Western Elites. From testimony in Parliament given by UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace:
“Around 15,000 Russian troops have been killed as Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine enters its ninth week, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has told MPs. Giving an update on the conflict, Mr Wallace said the death toll suffered by Vladimir Putin’s forces came in addition to the loss of thousands of pieces of military equipment by Russia. He told the House of Commons that latest estimates suggest more than 2,000 Russian armoured vehicles have been destroyed or captured – including at least 530 tanks, 530 armoured personnel carriers and 560 infantry fighting vehicles.”
The utter inanity of that statement, an official report by the head of the British armed forces to Parliament, is just stupefying. American thinking is similar. US Sec State Blinken made a public statement just recently citing similar Russian losses. It is just this kind of delusional statement that is guiding US/EU/NATO planning.
By way of comparison, the British Army comprises some 82,000 personnel. Out of this number they can organize one infantry brigade (ONE !!!!) plus supporting logistical units. They have about 50 to 60 Challenger 2 tanks on active duty and another 150 or so in storage. They have no long range logistical capability, no strategic aircraft, and only about 30 naval ships. Its one active aircraft carrier is used primarily by the US Marines as a training ship.
So Wallace and Blinken actually believe that Russia has lost a force larger than the whole British Army.
Perhaps instead of thinking what one would like coming out of the war; one should think about what things they cannot accept in as a result of the war; and order them by list of priority.
Maybe at the end neither side will get anything they want; just the avoidance of the absolute minimum of things they wish to avoid.
In game theory, in a 2-player game the two sides can win-win, win-lose, or lose-lose. Human psychology is such that if one thinks in terms of winning; they tend to be blinded to the possibility of lose-lose.
In a sense you’ve just explained one of the concerns I have about the Russian-Ukraine War. In anything other than a win-lose in which Russia is the definite loser, the U. S. loses.