Which is How a lot of Wars End?

Currently 4.22 am in Moscow. February 24th, (also) 4.22 am, Putin start to invaded Ukraine

We are constantly reacting to Putin. We should be the ones dictating the substance and tempo of this engagement. We are almost fully deterred, while Putin is almost fully undeterred. 

But…the crisis economy hit each other, for “Russian ally” (China) and Ukraine ally (the U.S., also nearly failed to pay a debt by Italy, etc). One of the most persistent claims by the “win in Ukraine at all costs” crowd is the notion that anyone with a different opinion is a morally bankrupt naïf who is cruelly pressuring Ukraine. It’s frivolous nonsense, detached from what is actually happening on the battlefield. Statespersons like Biden, Scholz, Putin, even Xi Jinping may not wish to concede spheres of influence, but they will still need a set of policies that capture the connection between geography, interest, and nuclear deterrence.

Let’s be abundantly clear what we are advocating for here: a long war that will further exhaust Ukraine’s economy, kill tens of thousands more people, and perhaps worsen peace terms for Kyiv when talks do happen. But it’s easy to advocate for this when you ignore the costs. Not only does the US budget absorb more and more (then, the domestic problem in the US related to the budget is abandoned). The same problem (sent money to Ukraine but failed to fix the domestic problem) arguably happened across European countries. 

Unlike those in DC who don’t have much of a stake in how the war is going (but are maximalist with their aims), Zelensky is right in the middle of it. He can’t afford to live in a utopian fantasy-land, where Ukraine defeats Russia 1945-style. Actually nearly invaded (entirely) by NAZI if not happened a miracle “very hurricane cold-storm” hit NAZI army (Barbarossa Operation). 

It’s a hypothetical now, but it will be interesting to see what happens if Zelensky adjusts his “no talks until we’ve restored pre-war lines” position. Will people continue to support Zelensky? Or will they then brand him as an appeaser who doesn’t understand “Putinism.” No, I'm not sharing ideas about Putin enabler—accused (person like) Macron, Scholz. But, let's check a wider issue.

Many commentators who reside thousands of kilometers or miles (even like me) from the battlefield are strongly convinced to the point of smug certitude that a longer war will work out for Ukraine. But I find it difficult to see how anyone can arrive at this conclusion based on how the conflict is going. foreign wars are a reminder that (only the U.S.) can afford everything they want at home, what’s lacking is political will not economic resources. 

Because we always have money to fund things - good and bad - abroad. On one side, The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee just approved a Pentagon policy bill that adds $45 billion to Biden's defense budget. The bill's price tag is now $847 BILLION—thanks for “no, maybe never ever stop Russia - Ukraine war”. Even if the West eventually sends the hundreds of rocket systems that Ukraine has asked for, Zelenskyy privately envisions a war that could drag on for years, depleting Ukraine’s population as the economy collapses and people move to Europe. Not surprised the Pentagon Budget in 2023 will be $950 BILLION or even reach 1 TRILLION.

Outrage, the U.S. defense budget rocketing is the least surprising thing imaginable. We’re on auto-pilot. If it’s not about keeping up with inflation, it’s about winning a hypothetical war against China. Primacy at its finest. I would also like the “win at all costs” crowd (curious how so many of them are located in DC) to be forthright about what they’re advocating here. In pursuit of total victory “at all costs”, the (REAL) costs to Ukraine in both lives and economic damage would be astronomical. Be honest about it.

In another side, recession is “not inevitable,” President Biden acknowledged Americans’ frustrations after a tumultuous two years of COVID and volatility in the economy, saying, “People are really, really down.” Can't afford formula milk. gasoline, whatsoever. Another side, the U.S. ally, NATO, European security is that it increasingly became purely about trying to deter Russia, which became convinced that it was on the outside and had nothing to lose in using force. Russia’s continued assault in Ukraine, is that individual self-interest is the engine that makes the world turn.

Ukrainian army’s high attrition rate and a bit of internal division in the West about what the objective actually is may eventually push Zelensky to opt for the very end-of-conflict diplomacy so many pundits despise. War escalation is extremely unpredictable, and most people don't appreciate just how easily and quickly wars can escalate to shocking levels of lethality. Even, one of staunchest ally for the U.S. in Asia, has warned. Singapore Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen says that the war in Ukraine is “not an ideological struggle between autocracies and democracies,” and warns that in Asia there would be “Few takers for a battle royale on that basis.”

In a way, time is on both Russia and Ukraine's side. "Win/lose" is not entirely binary. There are a range of outcomes in between. Russia has failed to achieve its broadest objectives and has lost more soldiers than during its entire misadventure in Afghanistan, deepening degrading morale amid Russian soldiers failing to “coup” Kyiv with (earlier target) only in 72 hours.

With regard to the West, time is on Russia's side: Ukraine fatigue is setting in, amid a grim economic downturn globally, and raising a question in (every single) domestic issue not only in the U.S. but also other countries who helped Ukraine: how much do we help Ukraine? 

There may come a point when Zelensky no longer thinks a fight-to-win strategy is sustainable. Transitioning to reconstruction now presents fewer challenges than an endless war that sees many more cities in Ukraine flattened and millions of its citizens living as refugees abroad. Imagine: Germany is deporting Syrian and Afghan refugees to “make room” for Ukrainian refugees. Why must the other refugees be deported just because of Ukraine.

How Ukraine will win when 200-300 Ukraine soldiers are killed per day (not counting civilians). Current situation is not sustainable over a long stretch. The question is how long it will take before Zelensky reaches it, and how much damage is accrued in the meantime. The battlefield will sooner or later impose its irresistible logic to the belligerents whatever politician will say. We have not reached this point. Zelensky is right to assume that Russia cannot sustain its current casualty rates.

Let’s be honest. Zelensky has terrible message discipline. Zelnsky is internally conflicted about how to end the war, and its logic because 50 million Ukraine people fought the 2nd Greatest Military ever in the Universe. Zelensky is being pushed by more hawkish security advisers and generals in the field to hold on the line. Zelensky is highly cognizant of popular opinion.

Some Biden high-rank concern that rather than dissuade the Kremlin as intended, US sanctions have instead exacerbated inflation, worsened food insecurity and punished ordinary Russians more than Putin or his allies (Saudi—-because oil; Iran—because oil & gas too; Angola—-same like Saudi & Iran). The U.S. and its allies are learning that sanctions take a long time to work—if they work at all. Biden high-rank underestimated the amount of self-sanctioning companies would do, a fact that’s contributing to inflation, how to squeeze Russia given that sanctions since February (war started) don't seem to have changed Putin's strategic calculus so far.

At least Biden will visit Riyadh in July. The so-called oil-for-security deal that has been the guidepost of U.S.-Saudi relations over the last eight decades isn't applicable. Washington and Riyadh are competitors in the oil market. And the Saudis, after pocketing concessions, can roll back production when it suits them. The “rules-based order” means threatening other countries with secondary sanctions if they buy oil from countries we don’t like.

If President Zelensky concludes he needs to at least consider territorial concessions during peace talks with Russia (“if,” not “when”). Will the same people who tell us to respect Ukraine’s choices stand by that position? Or will they denounce Zelensky as a softy or even… Putin’s enabler?

God bless those of you who point out the necessity of a diplomatic resolution to the war in Ukraine. Unfortunately, none of the combatants are ready to go down that route at the present time. The war of attrition will continue for the foreseeable future.