Russia’s war with Ukraine began in earnest two years ago. Arguably, it began almost ten years ago but technically it began two years ago when Russian regulars invaded Ukraine. Since then the media coverage, much of it of dubious credibility, has driven us from outrage to exaltation to determination to despair and back again. At RealClearDefense retired colonel Joe Buccino characterizes the first two years of the war like this:
In the first year after the full-scale Russian invasion – February 2022 to February 2023 – Ukrainian troops overcame massive disadvantages in technology and mass. They did so mainly with American Javelins, Stingers, and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems. During that period, Ukraine had largely bipartisan support in D.C. Throughout the following year – February 2023 to today – American aid – including dozens of tanks, more than a hundred Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and more than a hundred Strykers – kept Ukraine in the fight. During this period, support among Republicans in Congress began to wane. Even if the House approves the current proposed aid package, the flow of weapons is coming to a close. Without a continuing stream of those weapons, Ukraine will ultimately fall. Even the F-16 fighter jets the U.S. will ship to Ukraine in the coming months will not turn the tide. F-16s require long, smooth runways; the fighter aircraft will struggle to land and take off on Ukraine’s bombed-out runway.
Arriving at this conclusion:
The reality two years in is that there is no path to victory for Ukraine – not in the sense of pushing Russian troops back to the pre-February 2022 lines of control. After the Ukrainian troops abandoned Avdiivka – the most significant loss or gain by either side in nine months – following some of the war’s heaviest fighting, almost all advantages accrue to Russia. The seizure of Avdiivka does not materially change the war, but it does change the momentum. Moscow can throw mass in terms of bodies, tanks, artillery, and drones at the exhausted Ukrainian forces until they crack. Ukraine is exhausted and outnumbered and struggling to recruit new troops. The best Ukraine can do now is fight Russia to a negotiated settlement that allows sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security from another Russian invasion. Even these provisions now seem unrealistic.
After initial setbacks at the onset of the invasion, the Russian military now displays the resolute determination initially witnessed by the other side. Russian generals have adapted to Ukraine’s offenses after initial setbacks. Russian commanders are now building the kinds of defenses in depth that Ukrainian forces struggle to fight through. Russian ground forces now routinely defeat Ukraine’s drones. Russia’s formidable arsenals of attack helicopters, drones, and mines pound Ukraine while the Ukrainian troops resort to rationing artillery shells and long-range rockets.
Castigating that as Putin apologism or pro-Russian is fatuous. It is realistic, merciful even.
The only thing I would change from Col. Buccino’s post is that I do not believe that victory has ever been been possible for the Ukrainians as they are defining victory. Nonetheless I continue to believe we must support the Ukrainians’ war effort. However, its objective must change to gaining the best achievable terms for the Ukrainians for the conclusion of an armistice.
“Castigating that as Putin apologism or pro-Russian is fatuous. It is realistic, merciful even.”
I’d say it’s one-sided, not mentioning any of the factors working against the Russians. It has the same flaw as analyses, which assumed that Ukrainian “momentum” would continue and lead to victory and similarly ignored the challenges to Ukraine’s offensive. Here, he sees Russian momentum as continuous and inevitable, so his conclusion is that Ukraine should capitulate. Bad assumption.
Likely at least two more years to go.
Although by the end of the year, we’ll have a much clearer idea how the war will conclude.
Nice piece on the energy markets and how the war has affected things. Note that the Houthi attacks have had minimal effects. The US pumping record amounts of oil is a big part of that helping to offset OPEC cutting their output.
https://warontherocks.com/2024/02/red-sea-shocks-and-the-new-more-stable-normal/
Also, OT, but the Economist piece Joyner linked to is interesting. It claims, with some evidence, that essentially all of the increase in profits for US companies in the last 30 years has come from decreased taxes and lower interest rates. All that increasing money to the finance sector and increased CEO pay and the only thing they really accomplished was getting their taxes cut.
Steve
On oil; I think what’s interesting is oil is up in price year over year, but the sentiment is much more negative towards oil prices then last year.
I believe that. I did not oppose reducing the corporate income tax for competitive reasons. Having the highest corporate income tax in the developed world did us no good. Furthermore, as any honest economist will tell you, the most efficient corporate income tax rate is zero percent. The stuff about “companies paying their fair share” is BS.
However, I have opposed decreases in the personal income tax rate without cuts in spending and have complained about insufficient business investment quite regularly,