13 10 2024

All wars eventually end. So will the Ukraine war.

All wars end at some moment. Even the 100-years war between England and France 1337–1453 ended ultimately (with a French victory). All wars end at some moment. Even the 100-years war between England and France 1337–1453 ended ultimately (with a French victory). Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_the_Hundred_Years%27_War#/media/File:Mortagne_siege.jpg

As it is often stated, all wars must eventually end, and that is also valid for the Ukraine war. War fatigue is now clearly observable in Ukraine and among some of Ukraine’s Western backers, despite repeated insistence on continuing ‘as long as it takes’. There has up to now been a tacit agreement within NATO not to discuss the option of a negotiated peace openly, so the mantra is still that Putin is the new Hitler and anything but a Russian defeat is unacceptable. But rumours are that discussions are now ongoing in the corridors.

So what could a possible ‘endgame’ in Ukraine look like?

Before looking at these possibilities, let us take a look at the present situation and the balance of power.

Theory was until recently that Russia would be exhausted by the war and the sanctions, and the longer the war continues, the weaker Russia will be, economically and militarily. The NATO countries’ combined economies are so much bigger than Russia’s that the financial and military support for Ukraine cost peanuts. Actually, the war is a gift from heaven for NATO as a cheap way of getting rid of a rival, and the longer it lasts, the better.

But that was theory. The reality just now does not look very rosy for NATO. Despite the official EU-US position thattime is not on Russia’s side’, this looks increasingly to be the case. I don’t think the outcome of the presidential election in the US matters much. Kamala Harris promises to continue Biden’s ‘as long as it takes’ strategy, and despite Trump’s rhetoric, the reality is that during his first Presidency he let Republican party hawks manage foreign policy (Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and other horrible persons). However, whoever the president is, the US has other worries than Zelensky’s Ukraine, which looks more and more like a bottomless pit. The US is deeply involved in Israel’s wars in the Middle East, and it is in process of turning up the confrontation with China. At the same time it has a horrendous budget deficit, which cannot go on indefinitely. At some moment this will force the US politicians to make some hard choices which they up to now have refused to make (increase taxes or cut spending). This may diminish the appetite for ‘as long as it takes’ handouts to Zelensky’s Ukraine. So my guess is that the handouts will continue, but they will become less and less generous.

Political parties reluctant to support Ukraine are strengthening in the EU. Up to now it has mostly been right-wing parties, but now a left-wing Ukraine sceptic, Sarah Wagenknecht, is also on the rise in Germany, as is Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France. Photo from Wikimedia.

In the EU the appetite for continuing the war is also decreasing. The EU leadership is facing a growing rebellion from EU-sceptic far-right parties, which at the same time are critical of the continued unconditional support for the Ukraine war. To this comes now also growing resistance from left-wing parties in Germany and France. At the same time the EU economy is stagnating, and Germany is facing negative growth in both 2023 and 2024. With an extremely unpopular government, Germany has entered into crisis mode, which is likely to last at least until after the next parliamentary election, scheduled for September 2025, and financing for Ukraine is likely to decrease. Without Germany, the EU is paralysed. Little does it help that there is a club of small aggressive countries (the Nordic and Baltic countries) that are willing to sacrificewhatever it takes’ to continue the war.

Russia, on the other hand, continues to do relatively well economically, even if economic growth seems to be levelling off in second half of 2024. The war is costly for Russia, both in soldiers killed or wounded and in military spending. But at the same time Russia is reindustrialising and the real incomes of the population are increasing. This article in the mainstream media “The Hill” should be sobering reading for those predicting an imminent collapse of Russia (and there are many).

And finally, if we look at the battlefield in Ukraine, the Russians are obviously advancing, albeit slowly. The harsh reality is that the longer the war continues, the tougher the peace conditions are likely to become, and this message seems to be slowly seeping through.

While the NATO politicians can’t talk openly about possible “off-ramps”, the chattering class has started discussing the possible scenarios.

The first scenario, and the most talked-about in NATO circles, is what is called a “West German solution”, where a ceasefire freezes the front-lines where they are. But there will be no peace treaty, no official Ukrainian recognition of the loss of land, and Ukraine will get NATO membership within these borders, considered to be temporary. This is backed by hard-liners as Jens Stoltenberg, Petr Pavel, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and others.

This scenario is in my opinion very unlikely. Russia’s primary goal has the whole time been to prevent Ukrainian NATO membership, and secure the country as a neutral state. Not land grabbing. Insisting on Ukrainian NATO membership is insisting on continued war.

The second scenario is the “Finland solution”. Finland was fighting as an ally of Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union in the second world war, and after capitulating in 1944 a peace treaty was signed between the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and Finland. It implied return to the pre-war borders, demilitarisation, denazification and neutral status. After that followed decades of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. Up to now that is, as it seems Finland now seeks revenge.

The 2015 Minsk agreements, signed by Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Germany and France, left Donbass as part of Ukraine, but with a certain level of autonomy. The Minsk agreements were afterwards rejected by Ukraine.

This second scenario is very close to what Russia tried to achieve through the Minsk Accords in 2015 and the peace negotiations in Ankara in spring 2022 (including guarantees for the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population). In the Minsk accords only Crimea would go to Russia, while in the preliminary Ankara accords the status of Donbass was still to be discussed. This is very similar to the conditions presented by Russia recently, with the difference that now the conditions have been toughened so not only Donbass but two more southern provinces would go to Russia. The “Finland solution” was mentioned by the French President Macron back in 2022, but since then no Western leader I am aware of has spoken in favour of it. As this scenario is rejected by both Ukraine and its Western backers, this is presently not a possible option. So the war will have to continue, at least until Russia has taken full control over Donetsk Province, which may happen by mid-2025. Then perhaps a “Finland solution” may be discussed.

If there is no negotiated peace, I can see two more scenarios.

The third scenario is a collapse of the Ukrainian military or a collapse of the Zelensky Government. As losses mount, and as the forced mobilisation in Ukraine is becoming more and more unpopular, the Ukrainian military is no doubt under immense pressure. It seems also that Zelensky’s popularity is eroding, and his political rivals are smelling blood (former President Petro Poroshenko, Kiev mayor Vitaly Klitcho, former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and others). It is difficult to know how probable this scenario is, but in this case it will be Russia dictating the peace terms. That will probably mean that Ukraine also loses control over Odessa and hence its free access to the Black Sea (for example by Odessa getting a status as an autonomous region within Ukraine).

The fourth scenario is NATO sending troops to prevent a collapse of the Ukrainian Army and Government. Military instructors are already there, probably operating the more sophisticated NATO equipment, but sending a military contingent to participate in the fighting would imply direct war between NATO and Russia. There are many hot heads in the NATO camp who want that: leading politicians in the UK, the Nordic and the Baltic countries, and perhaps even Emmanuel Macron and Ursula Van der Leyden. But it will be increasingly difficult to reach an agreement in the EU for a direct war with Russia. So I think it is less likely now than it was a year ago. The consequences of this scenario are difficult to imagine as the situation may easily spin out of control. Let us hope that some cooler heads can reign in these lunatic persons so this doesn’t happen. But we can’t be sure.

But isn’t a fifth scenario missing? One where Ukraine gets all the money and weapons it needs and free hands to use the newly acquired F-16 fighter jets to send NATO-provided missiles into Russia, thus changing the fortunes of war? Few believe that any miraculous weapons can change the course of the war. Furthermore, Russia has already warned that if the Ukrainians get free hands to use their NATO missiles on Russian territory, then Russia will feel free to provide similar weapons to NATO’s adversaries. That could be Onyx anti-ship missiles to the Houthies to use against NATO warships in the Red Sea, Iskander missiles to Iraqi Militias to hit US bases in the region or even hypersonic Kinzhal missiles to Iran. The US is actually quite exposed in the Middle East. I think they will think twice, even in the unlikely case that unpredictable Trump wins the presidency.

The NATO countries fear that a defeat in Ukraine will weaken the alliance, as it comes on top of the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq. French historian and public intellectual Emmanuel Todd, who is just now on a tour to promote translations of his book: ‘La défaite de l’Occident’ (‘The defeat of the West’) says in an interview with Italian newspaper Corriere di Bologna that ‘NATO will “disintegrate” if Ukraine loses its war with Russia’, and that this will set Europe free (from US domination). I don’t think he is right. I think NATO will survive a defeat in Ukraine, but of course the organisation’s international prestige will suffer, and it will be evident that a multipolar world is emerging. After a defeat in Ukraine a serious discussion will be needed on a future security arrangement for Europa, but that is another story.

Conclusion? No immediate probability of a negotiated solution. Perhaps after one more year of fighting and slaughtering. This doesn’t depend on Ukraine. It depends on Ukraine’s Western Paymasters. And they are not there yet.

These are dangerous times. As the Italian Marxist Gramsci wrote in 1930 (from his prison cell): ‘The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.’

 

***************

I have commented on the Ucraine conflict since 2014. Click on the links below to read.

April 2014: Does the EU know what it is doing in Ukraine?

September 2014: Will sanctions hurt Russia?

November 2021: How to conserve the peace in Europa

December 2021: Has NATO decided to sacrifice Ukraine?

April 2022: Seems NATO did decide to throw Ukraine under the bus

January 2023: Oh, what a lovely war!

May 2023: And what if Ukraine loses the war?

July 2023: What are the Ukrainians dying for?

October 2023: Just wondering: Who is it exactly that is being strategically defeated in Ukraine?

February 2024:It is now it is becoming dangerous

July 2024: How to perpetuate slaughterhouse Ukraine

August 2024: The President in his labyrinth

 

 

 

Read 100 times
Rate this item
(1 Vote)
Thorbjorn Waagstein

Thorbjørn Waagstein, Economist, PhD, since 1999 working as international Development Consultant in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Related items

More in this category:

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.