18.03.2024
Early this year my comments on the war in Ukraine were, in short, that “Ukraine lost, Russia won. President Zelensky’s days in power are probably numbered. We’ll be seeing the detailed outcome better depending on the developments this year. Peace is more to the interest of Ukraine than anyone else, because if the war drags on, the Ukrainian army or state may collapse.”
In recent weeks one may see similar assessments increasing in the international media. The current situation looks like advancing toward one of the three options below. Unfortunately, however, in none of the cases Ukraine has any realistic chance of winning.
Option 1: A surprising peace relatively soon
German diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg writes that covert contacts between Russia and Ukraine are taking, probably through high level army commanders, and the war may end with an unexpected agreement in the next few months.
The retired diplomat, who served in high-level positions at the UN, makes similar remarks about Zelensky’s future, “it may only be a matter of time until he will be forced out of office.”
According to the RUSI strategic research institute, which maintains close connections with the British military and intelligence services, Russia’s current demands include Ukraine ceding the territory already under Russian control along with Kharkiv, the second biggest city of the country, and perhaps Odessa; agreeing not to join NATO; and a head of state approved by Russia. The only significant concession by Russia is that what is left of Ukraine can join the EU.
A comprehensive report with informative specific data was recently published by the Responsible Statecraft of the Quincy Institute, USA. The report underlines that negotiated settlement is in line with the interests not only of Ukraine, but also Russia and the West, and that resisting peace is extremely dangerous for Ukraine’s future. Because the war is not trending toward a stable stalemate, but toward Ukraine’s eventual collapse.
Quincy Institute takes its name from John Quincy Adams, an American statesman who served as the sixth president of the United States (1825-1829), and famously said “America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” Some of America’s most talented foreign policy experts write for Responsible Statecraft, which advocates a policy of restraint in international relations – almost the exact opposite of President Biden’s “liberal internationalism”. I envision and hope the US will return to a restraint policy abroad within a not-so-distant future.
Western politicians no longer talk about strategic defeat of Russia or a regime change in Kremlin. The voice of Western military experts who used to declare the Russian army and its commanders as incompetent are not heard very much, either. Nowadays, Western governments are discussing discretely among themselves about the limits of concessions that could be made to Russia.
There are two issues to consider about a negotiated settlement, though. A peace agreement after grave mistakes will require Ukraine to accept painful concessions, which would make it extremely hard for Zelenski to survive. His situation resembles the fate of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose political life will most likely end along with the war.
Secondly, if public perception in the West concludes that Russia won the war, how the power elites, who kept maintaining a high-pitched Russo-phobic rhetoric from the very beginning, could possibly cope with it? How much would Biden’s bid, such as “Russia lost the war, because it failed to wipe Ukraine off the map”, carry convincing substance?
Option 2: Resisting until the end of the year
A new strategy being elaborated in the West suggests that Ukraine should, until the end of the year, withdraw the troops to a defensive military posture, the goal of which should be to avoid losing additional territory, and hit the Russian interior with the weapon systems West will supply, forcing Kremlin to agree to more concessions.
But would Ukraine -be able to hold out until the end of the year? Or, what if it holds out but Trump wins the November elections in America?
Ukrainian army’s ammunition is draining. A correspondent of The Telegraph of London, who visited the front lines reports a Ukrainian soldier complaining; “they cannot fire even when they have the Russians in their sights”. Instead, starved of ammunition, they describe being forced to pull back to the closest village.
West had promised to supply 1 million artillery shells by March 2024, but only half of that has been delivered.
On behalf of Ukraine staff planning for the war has been carried out by American and British generals at NATO headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany. Was the ammo planning that poor?
Even if weapons and ammunition arrive, Ukraine does not have enough troops. Kiev has so far failed to finalize the new military recruitment law for months. The country’s population, which was 44 million before the war, dropped to 28-30 million, and the recruitment pool shrank accordingly. Compulsory military service for women was considered for a while, but was dropped out because of reactions. Troops who have been fighting on the front lines for two years need to be rotated and have rest, but there is not enough fresh blood for replacement.
If a comprehensive recruitment policy is implemented, Ukrain’s already failing economy would suffer new blows.
In comparison, Russia switched to a war economy and increased output of military material many folds. It had 180 thousand soldiers within the Ukrainian territory at the beginning of the war, now the same figure was 450 thousand by December 2023.
Ukraine encounters also severe economic challenges. The 2024 budget prepared by Kiev is based on a deficit of 43 billion dollars. In recent months the flow of aid from the West has almost dried out [up], except for $54 billion pledged by the EU after much wrangling – but that was for four years. No one knows how the large deficit in the budget will be taken care of.
The Biden administration holds the Republican opposition responsible for keeping the $61 billion aid package pending in Congress. But this attitude does not reflect the full picture. As the US media reported, the Biden administration itself notified Kiev more than a year ago, in January 2023, that economic aid to Ukraine would drop significantly in 2024 due to the presidential elections, as American voters do not support large amounts of aid to Ukraine. Currently, almost 70% of Americans want talks to end war in Ukraine.
The Biden administration patted Ukraine on the back and threw it in front of Russia, promising “we will give what it takes”. Then in April 2022, they sabotaged the peace agreement that had favorable clauses for Ukraine, digging in their feet “to give war a chance”.
Now the new motto is “we will give what we can.” Western leaders, while sustaining the rhetoric on heroism in stylish meeting halls, don’t deliver adequate economic and military support to Ukraine just when it is going through an existential test of life-or-death.
Who will be held accountable for the tens of thousands of lives and territories lost after April 2022? Who will shoulder the political and moral responsibility?
According to his closest colleagues, Zelensky believes that “the West betrayed Ukraine.” But he cannot tell it openly for now.
I have been emphasizing for months that if the war drags on, Russia may launch a comprehensive attack and Ukraine may roll into deeper catastrophes. Many Western media are nowadays sounding precisely that alarm, such as CNN World: “Ukraine is losing people and land. It is all very real, very immediate and stark… the possibility of sweeping changes (by Russians) on the frontlines is quite real.”
Option 3: World War III
There is no consensus among Western leaders on what to do vis-à-vis the Ukrainian dilemma.
French President Macron declared, “We cannot allow Russia to win. No option can be excluded, including NATO countries sending troops to Ukraine.”
Putin responded harshly, “In that case there will be a NATO-Russia fight and the conflict may lead to a nuclear war.” During the initial days of the Russian occupation that began in February 2022, he had made similar remarks, “We know Russia cannot defeat NATO in a conventional war. In that case, Russia would have to use nuclear weapons.”
Most European countries, including England, Germany and even the staunchest pro-Ukrainian Poland, flatly denied Macron. The German Chancellor spoke on behalf of the entire EU: “No EU country will send troops to Ukraine.”
A rarely seen harsh blow came from a senior commentator of a pro-Biden, major American daily: Macron’s demarche is a quest for relevance when he is isolated and appeared a marginal figure. It is a provocation. He displays strategic bafflement. Macron, who described, in 2019, NATO as suffering from “brain death” is always like this, and favors provocation over preparation, etc.
Macron’s own Minister of Foreign Affairs was obliged to try to explain it away by saying “he didn’t mean that, he meant this.”
Another sign of confusion is a succession of discordant statements from intelligence agencies and senior politicians.
– The CIA “leaked” to a major newspaper detailed information about how they had been using Ukrainian intelligence for anti-Russian activities for at least 10 years, feeding more credibility to the criticism that the US seeks to transform Ukraine into a fortified castle hostile to Russia.
– The head of the Ukrainian intelligence told journalists that the Russian opposition figure Navalny died of natural causes, as a result of a blood clot, for which they had definitive proofs.
– Two high level German generals were caught by Russian eavesdropping while discussing in detail how they could destroy the Kerch Bridge connecting the mainland to Crimea with Taurus missiles. When Russia released the tapes, Prime Minister Scholz attempted to rebut it: “Germany would not do such a thing. For that purpose, we need to send in German soldiers who can operate missiles. However, Germany would never send troops to Ukraine like Britain and France did.” Britain and France, who always maintained they had no troops in Ukraine, strongly protested.
What would Western countries do if the Ukrainian army collapses in the coming months, or if a power chaos breaks out in Kiev, or if Russia seizes additional large chunks of Ukrainian territory? It is impossible to predict – anything is possible.
In addition to the current discord and confusion among decision-makers, one should also take into account the abundance of fanatics among Western elites.
As a result of deliberate steps taken by some Western countries or accidents that may occur in hot conflict environment, the risk for direct NATO-Russia clashes, the Third World War and subsequent nuclear escalation that would threaten the civilization is higher than ever since the Second World War.
Let’s hope it won’t happen!
—————————
Originally published in Turkish, in Özgür Siyaset, March 9, 2024, and in other media.
Google translation, reviewed.