Notes

Ukraine: How might the war end? Five scenarios
If the West remains united with Ukraine, it could make the costs of the war so insurmountable for Russia that it breaks the level of commitment of its political elite. A similar situation emerged after the fighting in Ukraine in 2014, with the unresolved conflict featuring a form of continued Russian occupation for many years. If there was no clear successor, Mr Putin's departure could spur on a brutal power struggle among pro-war, right-wing nationalists, authoritarian conservatives and a murky anti-war movement. "The elites and potential successors are watching [Putin's] every military move, but they can already see that he has no place in their post-war vision of the future," Russian journalist Andrey Pertsev wrote in his analysis for the Carnegie Endowment.

Wars of attrition are also so costly that they sometimes end with little strategic warning. A second way for Ukraine to win — at least theoretically — would be through a diplomatic agreement. "Ukraine may shift tactics to deal with a downturn in Western aid, but I don't believe they will surrender." Moscow has proved resourceful when it comes to building autonomy into critical goods, Lichfield explained. In reality, if Ukraine is going to force Russia from all its occupied territory, it is likely to take several more offensives, many months at least, and a dramatic change in Kremlin thinking. More recent theoretical literature had acknowledged the two-sidedness of war, Goemans writes, but here, too, important aspects had been missed.
And even once Russian forces have achieved some presence in Ukraine's cities, perhaps they struggle to maintain control. Maybe Russia cannot provide enough troops to cover such a vast country. Ukraine's defensive forces transform into an effective insurgency, well-motivated and supported by local populations. And then, perhaps after many years, with maybe new leadership in Moscow, Russian forces eventually leave Ukraine, bowed and bloodied, just as their predecessors left Afghanistan in 1989 after a decade fighting Islamist insurgents.

Why Putin won’t back down
The public is bearing the costs of war in the form of inflation, economic decline and battlefield deaths. It was largely apparent that Russia’s army was and is far superior to Ukraine’s in terms of stockpiles of weapons and number of personnel. However, what was not apparent to Russia until the fighting began is that the Ukrainian people are far more willing to fight than they anticipated.

The war has already become very costly for the oligarchs and these costs will only increase with time. When a sufficient number of Putin’s coalition privately turn against the war, this will pressure Putin to end the war or risk his position of power. However, where this line is and if there are any viable alternatives that would better serve the interests of this coalition is questionable.


“It would have to get pretty bad for the Russians to get there,” he said, adding that there’s no way of knowing how many reserves the government stashed away after years of fat checks from energy sales. Moscow has proved resourceful when it comes to building autonomy into critical goods, Lichfield explained. For example, the tactic of repurposing dishwasher electronics for weapons, mocked in the West as a sign of desperation, probably means “somebody thought about that from the beginning,” he said.

Russia's economy is still working but sanctions are starting to have an effect
Having to rely on Donald Trump both winning the November US election (the next major landmark event) and then doing what he wants is not wholly comfortable. According to Politico , encouraged by the Biden administration, this is the shift in posture currently underway, bolstering air defences, strengthening positions in eastern Ukraine, and making it harder for Russian forces to attack from Belarus. The suggestion is that this is to prepare for eventual negotiations, although the main need is simply for Ukraine to show that it can play a long game. Ukraine has been unable to put itself in a position to force a decision on Russia.

Emory University’s Reiter listed two main reasons for the lack of appetite in Ukraine for any negotiations that would mean accepting the loss of territory. Nevertheless, an effective grand strategy must still end the fighting and achieve real peace. While the West believes it will be up to Ukraine to decide its future, there is no denying the outcome of the war will have far-reaching consequences for Europe and the rest of the world. The war in Ukraine assumed international dimensions the moment Russian armoured columns rolled across the border in February 2022. It is the duty of the military to analyse that threat, and they still might be proved wrong.
In the meantime, the costs of the war would continue to weigh heavily on Russia, possibly weakening Mr Putin's internal support. A ceasefire would give the Ukrainians a reprieve without backing Mr Putin into a corner, preventing a possible escalation in which he resorts to extreme measures such as attacks on Western energy infrastructure or the use of nuclear weapons. Any progress towards talks would likely start with a ceasefire or a similar type of temporary arrangement that would enable both sides to suspend fighting, the analysts suggest.

Regime Change in Russia?
And leaving Russia with no apparent options but Putin’s determination to fight is not the way to pressure Russia to move in the right direction or to mobilize as much support from the rest of the world as possible. At present, it seems all too likely that the fighting will only end when both sides are so exhausted that one side makes enough military gains to actually “win,” or both accept an awkward and unstable ceasefire. Even “winning” seems likely to produce a victory where the end results are highly unstable. A Russian “victory” would leave Russia so divided from Europe that Russia would face a major ongoing confrontation with the West. A Ukrainian “victory” that does not result in massive political upheavals and changes in Russian goals could still leave Ukraine half crippled, and without regaining the territory, it lost in 2014.


"If the Russian spring offensive was successful … they could possibly take all of the area west and [to] the east of the Dnieper River, and then make a puppet state out of what's left of Ukraine ," Professor Clarke added. "[Putin] can't stop, he can't go back," the Centre for Strategic and International Studies' senior advisor and retired Marine colonel Mark Cancian said. Ukrainian officials believe an emboldened Russia is preparing for another offensive as early as today, having begun the preliminary phase earlier this month. While Americans back providing aid for Ukraine, a recent Pew Research Poll found nearly a quarter believe the country is providing too much support to Ukraine.


But without political support, the mindset of a country that does not feel like it is about to go to war is unlikely to change. Germany's Defence Minister, Boris Pistorius, recently told a German newspaper "we have to take into account that Vladimir Putin might even attack a Nato country one day". While he said such an attack is unlikely now, "our experts expect a period of five to eight years in which this could be possible". The UK's defence secretary has also warned that we need to be prepared for a war.


Such an outcome would end the current fighting without reducing the tensions that led to the Russian invasion in the first place without restoring any broader level of stability between Russia and Europe and the United States. It would also leave NATO and Russia in a state of military confrontation like the Cold War. The United States and Europe would conduct rival arms races and military build-ups with Russia while in a state of political and economic confrontation and competing for influence on a global level. As the UNDP data shown earlier indicates, Ukraine now must actively defend against sustained missile attacks on its economy and civil structure and against a Russia that seems willing to attack its civil population and wage the equivalent of political and economic warfare. If Russia continues to expand it targeting and military pressure on Ukraine’s export capabilities, it may succeed in destroying much of Ukraine’s remaining ability to maintain a functional economy. Russia may have its military limits, but it remains still a far more formidable political, economic, and military enemy compared to those encountered in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Ukraine shares a common border.


Neither outcome is likely in the coming weeks and months, meaning people around the world are left to watch the horrors of war unfold, and wait. Throughout the war, Western governments have continued to supply aid and weapons to Ukraine and, if that continues, Kyiv's forces could translate that into more battlefield success. There is no doubt that the success of such efforts is highly problematic given Putin’s conspiracy theories about the West and desire to restore a greater Russia. At the same time, Putin has shown he can be pragmatic in the past, and Russia is already under serious political and economic pressure because of the war.

He agreed to a House rules change that would allow any member to initiate a vote to remove him as speaker, forcing him to tread carefully even on issues that enjoy majority Republican support — such as Ukraine assistance. While the bipartisan majority of lawmakers support arming Kyiv, 57 Republicans voted against a $40 billion emergency aid supplemental in May. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., made several concessions to those Ukraine aid skeptics to secure the votes to win his protracted speakership battle. And the near-total control of information by the government is making dissent difficult.

My Website: https://pastelink.net/nl9dqeg5