Posted on 03/27/2023 8:07:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
We’re now into the second year of the war in Ukraine, and while support for Ukraine remains strong (if not support for endless military aid to them) we’re reaching the point where virtually everyone wants to see an end to the fighting. Or at least that’s what most of them say in public. The Wall Street Journal has reached the conclusion that Ukraine’s allies see a way that the war could be brought to an end. Or multiple ways. But the problem as they describe it, however, is that nobody has a specific plan to make it happen. Much hope rests on an expected Ukrainian counteroffensive in the spring, but even with all of the increasingly powerful military arms and equipment Zelensky continues to receive, few believe that he will be able to deliver enough of a punch to finish the job. (Subscription required)
Western leaders are beginning to have a clearer vision of how they hope the war in Ukraine will end. What is missing is any plan to make it happen.
The hope in Washington and European capitals is that a Ukrainian counteroffensive—boosted by Western tanks and other fresh weaponry—will punch a hole in Russia’s control of Ukrainian territory this spring.
In theory, that gives Kyiv’s forces such a battlefield advantage that Russian President Vladimir Putin is nudged into peace talks where the Kremlin cedes at least the territory it has taken since the invasion in February 2022. Then Ukraine is free to anchor its future in the west, and a defeated and diminished Mr. Putin can face the wrath of his own people.
The scenario described above relies on a number of assumptions and is lacking in key specifics. It assumes a Ukrainian spring counteroffensive of ferocious proportions that “punches a hole” in the Russian lines at the eastern end of the country. But the Ukrainians have already punched several holes into Russian-held territory. That hasn’t seemed to deter Vladimir Putin at all and he continues to send conscripts into the fray while blasting the countryside with rockets.
Mention is made of “western tanks and other fresh weaponry.” That would certainly add some punch to Ukraine’s capabilities, but the delivery of any significant number of tanks still appears to be well in the future, possibly not until next year. And almost certainly not quickly enough for a spring offensive. And Vladimir Putin has shown no signs of suggesting a ceasefire where he gives back even the new land Russia has conquered over the past year.
Perhaps that is why the WSJ analysis suggests that the far more likely path will involve “a war of attrition that lasts until one side is so defeated or exhausted that it calls a halt without realizing its ultimate aims.” This is clearly a reference to Ukraine since there is no scenario where the Russian Federation is “defeated” unless Ukraine plans on invading Russian territory, likely triggering the use of tactical nuclear weapons. And what are Ukraine’s “ultimate aims” in this scenario? Ejecting the Russian forces from all of its territories, of course. Or at least all of the territory it controlled prior to the invasion.
It’s also worth noting that the WSJ points out that the “war of attrition” scenario would almost certainly be measured in years, not weeks or months. How long will the patience (not to mention the pocketbooks) of Ukraine’s allies last? Yes, Joe Biden and most of the swamp dwellers in Washington continue to say “as long as it takes.” But what if it takes years?
The WSJ then raises the prickly question of what should be done about Putin even if the war does shut down in some fashion.
There is broad agreement that Ukraine ought to be given the means to deter a future Russian invasion, either as part of NATO or in some kind of pact with the alliance.
But French President Emmanuel Macron and some allies have said they are wary of humiliating Russia and want the West to offer Ukraine security assurances that Russia can live with. Others instead want to see Russia’s military permanently degraded.
It’s a rare day when you’ll hear me say this, but Macron is probably making a valid point. If Putin is “humiliated” too much on the world stage, he will become increasingly likely to do something erratic. And as far as making Ukraine part of NATO to deter future attacks goes, has everyone forgotten that talk of Ukraine potentially joining NATO was one of Putin’s key complaints in the first place?
Everyone quoted in the article seems to agree that Putin believes that time is on his side. The Prime Minister of Poland notes that the United States (at least as long as Joe Biden is in charge) will refuse to allow Ukraine to fall. But he continues by saying that he is more worried about his Western European partners and friends “because they are less patient.” When he says something like that, we should probably pay attention.
I’ve tried to game this situation out in my head more times than I can count. And it’s becoming increasingly clear (at least to me) that there’s one reason that nobody is proposing a comprehensive solution that ends this war with Ukraine achieving “victory.” It’s because no such solution exists. And if that’s the case, a more realistic plan will be required and that may mean that Russia doesn’t walk away empty-handed.
At least you made an effort. Those who are not trying are dying.
Are you an American citizen?
If you are American, take a long look at what America has been doing the last 30+ years for “freedom and democracy” everywhere but in America.
The America I loved and remember does not exist. Strange, maybe, but Europeans were the first to know.
Thanks for the verification.
Poke a commie and what do you get? We get you. Send us photos to verify.
Well done Putin you fell for the globullist’s trap
~~~~~~~~~
The globalists are squealing like pigs - their plan is failing.
We’re not going to agree on this........
You have absorbed ‘the narrative’ pushed by the MSM and NATO. No amount of proof would matter to you.
PS: “First some history we are no where near the munitions fired in ww1”
The Economist article quoted the head of Ukrainian military who was in tern relaying what the British told him when he requested a specific amount of ammunition - that it would be more than WWI. The Uk Military leader was lamenting that NATO didn’t have what he needed to mount an offensive. “I know what i need, and I know I can’t get it.”
Sorry to come off so strong, no war begins with the production needed when the war starts and predictions of need are never right. As Ww1 turned into trench warfare shell usage claimed many times over what was thought to be needed and “shell hunger” was a thing. As to shell usage estimates are around 1 billion to 1.5 billion. So I stand by my statement as a general point comparing the two wars
Not sure the context of the conversation but as to numbers I am sure he is wrong about that
As to not being able to supply what Ukraine wants/needs
That is the only solution, but one that Putin, as long as he is alive , cannot accept
Nor do I think several rows down the food chain will be any better.
This ends with lots more bloodshed and either Ukraine taken or Russian federation in civil war
Wrong.
You’re a nutball, and we’re done.
I do. Cut off the money and weapons. That will end it.
Figures you would be looking at Putin’s ass.
As I would say about you, being so sure of one’s self is something I see often
But you are right no amount of proof
RE: Cut off the money and weapons. That will end it.
Yes of course. That would end it …. For Ukraine as we know it.
at least I’m not kissing it
Fine, the New Ukraine will have a place without those horrible Russian people in the Donbass and they can gather round and embrace their Nazi heritage on Bandera Day.
You can’t keep your eyes off it. Stalker
you sound obsessed
Gorbachev himself even said that there was never any promise.
>The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.