I’m really curious why Biden thinks a negotiated end is likely. The situation looks really bad for Russia from where I’m sitting, and if that doesn’t change how would a negotiation work? The Americans have awesome intelligence on Russia, but they also have nuclear fears that might lead upper leadership to do some wishful thinking.
I guess what’s the alternative?
I don’t think Ukraine can take or hold Moscow or any other targets inside Russia itself, so Russia capitulating is very unlikely. It seems like it also won’t be able to conquer Ukraine. And the war won’t last forever. So… some kind of negotiated settlement is the only remaining solution.
I think by far the most likely option is at least one other coup or internal secession, which causes the Russians to never technically leave but to de-facto leave as they shift their attention and resources to more existential issues.
Failing that, it’s harder to say. If Russia continues to lose ground but doesn’t give up, one could imagine a scenario where the Ukrainian advance is stopped by the Russian border. There’s not much historical precedent for an all-out industrial war where a pre-existing border is held sacred. I imagine it would be hard to tell a unit to drive into Ukraine where they’ll definitely be hit by an F-16 strike, so it would probably turn into a game of lobbing rockets and drones from well within Russia’s territory, while the Ukrainians figure out how deep they’re willing to strike back.
The other options are Russia starts taking ground again, which seems unlikely, or Russia agrees to white peace including giving back Crimea, which might be politically impossible as it’s seen as an integral part of Russia.
Ukraine has been in war economy mode for over a year now, and it’s not sustainable long term while all of the sanctions on Russia haven’t crippled their economy to the point of being unable to continue fighting. Their ability to fight Russia is largely dependent on continued western aid, largely from the US, which has become increasingly controversial politically. The current counteroffensive has been a slow, long grind without much in the way of territorial gain so far, further decreasing popular support for Ukraine in the west. If Russian sympathizers in the US government manage to block aid to Ukraine before they are able to break Russia’s defenses, the Ukrainian Armed Forces will run out of funding and equipment and be forced to negotiate best case scenario, or be overrun by the Russians worst case scenario. It is still a long time until the next US election so they should still fight, but unless they’re able to make dramatic gains like they did previously, Ukraine may have to negotiate eventually
In the US it’s controversial in the sense that there’s 40% of the stakeholders that want to stop, and 60% that wouldn’t dream of it. Just “controversial” makes it sound like there’s wide-ranging debate. As far as I know the rest of the West is still onboard too, and they’re not a negligible source of aid, just somewhat smaller than the US.
It would be a big blow to lose the US, though, you’re right about that.
This war will either grind through the male population of both countries (which is probably good for US interests tbh) or will end in negotiations.
Russia has a few things in abundance: land, labour, and artillery. They can afford to defend for years while taking much fewer casualties than the Ukrainian side (simply by virtue of, y’know, not attacking) and simply waiting to exhaust Ukraine’s human capital.
Russia can mine every field from Bakhmut to Moscow. Their domestic industrial capacity is skyrocketing and they (like Ukraine) can still import consumer electronics from manufacturers in China. They’ve found solid buyers in India for their O&G who are less concerned about international backlash as they are about making money.
Eventually Ukraine will run out of able-bodied men in an offensive op. So will Russia if Russia decides to have another go at the offensive meat grinder.
Attrition benefits neither Ukraine nor Russia, but it does benefit the West. So…
which is probably good for US interests tbh
I don’t see how. Ukraine is a very firm, committed US and Western ally at this point.
Russia has a few things in abundance: land, labour, and artillery.
True, although I’m less sure about the artillery situation. I heard they bought a bunch of shells off of North Korea recently, but their whole doctrine revolves around shooting them en mass and their own ammunition manufacturing was ground down to almost nothing before the war started.
It’s pretty impossible to find reliable recent casualty numbers, but the closest reasonably trustworthy ones are from the pentagon leaks, and they are more favourable to the Ukrainians - over 2 Russians per Ukrainian.
Their domestic industrial capacity is skyrocketing
That is not at all what I’ve heard. It’s more like they’re desperately dragging the neglected war-relevant parts of it back online. Like, I think you’re right that if the political situation stays stable they could keep going, but I don’t really see a way to turn the tide, because all Ukraine has to do to get stronger is learn to use gifted Western weapons.
Early in the invasion I saw a video that basically said Russia had to wrap it up in a few months to stay competitive because of this, and that’s broadly panned out. Ukraine has indeed shifted to NATO systems with supply only constrained by diplomacy, and Russia has indeed had some logistical problems.
Eventually Ukraine will run out of able-bodied men in an offensive op. So will Russia if Russia decides to have another go at the offensive meat grinder.
Maybe. Russia’s has some sort of path to victory if (again assuming political stability) they can keep their casualty rates controllable. They do have 4x the population.
I mean, Russia’s been on the offensive, so are you surprised that they’re losing more men? Attacking is notoriously challenging and has been for most of human history. As an aggressor, you only really win with overwhelming force or by grinding your opponents down until you find a breakthrough that your opponents can’t fill. Russia started with overwhelming force, which is where most of the territorial gains were made.
Russia has like 3.5 times the population of Ukraine, so Ukraine has to take the advantage with tactics and weapons. Unfortunately, Russia is getting war material from other countries, most notably Iran, North Korea, and China, all three of whom have focused significant parts of their economy on preparing for war, and none of whom like the West. Europe still depends on Russian gas, and significant parts of the world still depend on grain, gas, and fertilizer from Russia.
For Ukraine’s part, none of the West want to escalate into full-blown war with Russia, and the US Republicans are looking forward to the day when they can stop supporting Ukraine - a day which may come in as little as 18 months.
Russia is getting war material from other countries, most notably Iran, North Korea, and China
China too? I thought they were basically sticking to non-lethal aid.
Europe still depends on Russian gas
Come to think of it, I haven’t heard an update on that in a while. I know Germany was building LNG ports at a mind-boggling pace. I have to assume at some point they won’t be strictly dependent anymore, but I don’t know when.
and the US Republicans are looking forward to the day when they can stop supporting Ukraine - a day which may come in as little as 18 months.
That’s a big variable too. What’s the West without the US? We may find out. My government has already mentioned they are gaming out scenarios.
Gas:
European Union countries have increased their imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia compared with before the Ukraine war, despite the EU’s aim to quit Russian fossil fuels within a few years, an analysis by campaigners showed. Source.
China: they’re relying on so-called “dual use” items: drones to spy and drop munitions, night-vision goggles for snipers, “sports equipment” that’s actually bulletproof vests and helmets, that kind of thing. They’re also supplying “spare parts” that can be used to repair or even assemble military equipment from scratch.
And LNG is just a fraction of the total gas import and not representative.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the secretary general of NATO, recently had his knuckles rapped when he commented on possible options for an end to the war in Ukraine that did not envision a complete Russian defeat.
Western allies and Ukrainians themselves had hung much hope on a counteroffensive that might change the balance on the battlefield, expose Russian vulnerability and soften Moscow up for a negotiated end to the fighting, which has stretched on for a year and half.
But given that even President Biden says the war is likely to end in negotiations, Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, believes there should be a serious debate in any democracy about how to get there.
That criticism worsened considerably when the two men, together with Thomas E. Graham, a former American diplomat in Moscow, had private conversations with Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, to explore the possibility of negotiations.
“That means deliberately choosing the defeat of democracy, encouraging a global criminal, preserving the Russian regime, destroying international law, and passing the war on to other generations.”
Eagerness from Paris or Berlin to negotiate too early will simply embolden Mr. Putin to manipulate that zeal, divide the West and seek concessions from Ukraine, said Ulrich Speck, a German analyst.
The original article contains 1,280 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Is it his first war or something? He should know what defeatist talk is, once you’ve picked your side. If he hasn’t picked a side for himself yet, why not? There are very clearly two of them, and only two of them. The only alternative is neutrality, Swiss-style. Except our country is already an indirect participant, so isn’t it a little late for that…?
