I don't think Putin will accept any such solution which does not involve Russia having a strong say on Ukraine's business in the future - too much sunk cost has been spent. For sure, Russia would like to have a peace accord securing that core objective, but since that option is unlikely to take place, Russia will resort to something else. My best guess is a frozen conflict, because that would be the second best option and it would keep Ukraine in a bind for years to come. The key is to prevent Ukraine joining the West - at any cost. Once Russia loses its grip on Ukraine, it's lost for good.
Against that backdrop, it's easy to understand that any security guarantees are a no-go for Russia, and it will do anything in its power to prevent them taking place. The same goes for NATO/EU membership as they would greatly reduce Russia's sway on Ukraine.
So my grim view is that Russia will be keeping Ukraine in its bloody caress for years to come. The intensity of fighting will naturally wane over time, finally reaching a point which is just sufficient to keep Ukraine inadmissible to Western institutions. Let's keep in mind that accession to NATO or EU requires a consent by each and every current member, and Russia keeping up a shooting war will do the job.
On the other hand, Russia's military power will be bogged down in/close to Ukraine for a long, long time. Russia will be bleeding dry economically and in terms of military materiel, and at some point war fatigue will -eventually- raise its head. Russia will no longer be 10 feet tall, a juggernaut feeding on blood, as the current frenzy in Europe goes.
Thanks for sharing your analysis! I don't think there is a guarantee that the intensity of the war will naturally decrease over time. The Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, fought over 8 years with fairly high intensity throughout, is a good example. I think unless something dramatic happens, we could be in for several more years of high-intensity warfighting.
I agree that Russia will most likely bog down in Ukraine and bleed resources for years to come, whatever the exact outcome. Unless Putin can somehow cut off Ukraine from Western assistance, any Russian victory that could be defined as such will come at tremendous and prolonged costs.
The major benefit of a frozen conflict would be that Russia could keep Ukraine in its grip with minimum cost - waiting years (even decades?) for a better opportunity to have/install a "friendly" regime in Kiev, or have Ukraine's Constitution modified as per the Minsk Accord. For sure, Western sanctions would remain in place upping the cost, though.
Keeping up a hot war -on the other hand- would pinpoint Russia's will to defeat Ukraine once and for all. This option would carry enormous costs, compared to the frozen mode. But then again, and if successful, it might resolve the "Ukraine problem".
Anyway, to me, present Western 'paths to peace' appear delusional. They view the situation from our and Ukraine's perspective only, neglecting the core objectives Russia holds dear. There will be no 'land-for-peace' or 'security guarantees' options available, because Russia gets a vote, too.
I share your frustration with Western media ignorance, and Western political ‘leadership’. Western countries are nothing more than the war’s quartermaster, not a single combatant has been killed. I despair to think of how Western leaders would cope with Ukraine’s military, civilian and infrastructure losses.
I don't think Putin will accept any such solution which does not involve Russia having a strong say on Ukraine's business in the future - too much sunk cost has been spent. For sure, Russia would like to have a peace accord securing that core objective, but since that option is unlikely to take place, Russia will resort to something else. My best guess is a frozen conflict, because that would be the second best option and it would keep Ukraine in a bind for years to come. The key is to prevent Ukraine joining the West - at any cost. Once Russia loses its grip on Ukraine, it's lost for good.
Against that backdrop, it's easy to understand that any security guarantees are a no-go for Russia, and it will do anything in its power to prevent them taking place. The same goes for NATO/EU membership as they would greatly reduce Russia's sway on Ukraine.
So my grim view is that Russia will be keeping Ukraine in its bloody caress for years to come. The intensity of fighting will naturally wane over time, finally reaching a point which is just sufficient to keep Ukraine inadmissible to Western institutions. Let's keep in mind that accession to NATO or EU requires a consent by each and every current member, and Russia keeping up a shooting war will do the job.
On the other hand, Russia's military power will be bogged down in/close to Ukraine for a long, long time. Russia will be bleeding dry economically and in terms of military materiel, and at some point war fatigue will -eventually- raise its head. Russia will no longer be 10 feet tall, a juggernaut feeding on blood, as the current frenzy in Europe goes.
Thanks for sharing your analysis! I don't think there is a guarantee that the intensity of the war will naturally decrease over time. The Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, fought over 8 years with fairly high intensity throughout, is a good example. I think unless something dramatic happens, we could be in for several more years of high-intensity warfighting.
I agree that Russia will most likely bog down in Ukraine and bleed resources for years to come, whatever the exact outcome. Unless Putin can somehow cut off Ukraine from Western assistance, any Russian victory that could be defined as such will come at tremendous and prolonged costs.
The major benefit of a frozen conflict would be that Russia could keep Ukraine in its grip with minimum cost - waiting years (even decades?) for a better opportunity to have/install a "friendly" regime in Kiev, or have Ukraine's Constitution modified as per the Minsk Accord. For sure, Western sanctions would remain in place upping the cost, though.
Keeping up a hot war -on the other hand- would pinpoint Russia's will to defeat Ukraine once and for all. This option would carry enormous costs, compared to the frozen mode. But then again, and if successful, it might resolve the "Ukraine problem".
Anyway, to me, present Western 'paths to peace' appear delusional. They view the situation from our and Ukraine's perspective only, neglecting the core objectives Russia holds dear. There will be no 'land-for-peace' or 'security guarantees' options available, because Russia gets a vote, too.
I share your frustration with Western media ignorance, and Western political ‘leadership’. Western countries are nothing more than the war’s quartermaster, not a single combatant has been killed. I despair to think of how Western leaders would cope with Ukraine’s military, civilian and infrastructure losses.