![]() Assuming that the number of wounded was three times as high, which was the average experience during World War II, that would imply that roughly 60,000 Russians had been knocked out of commission. In April, the British defense ministry estimated that 15,000 Russian soldiers had died in Ukraine. Simple math seemed to tell the story of a Russian army on the verge of collapse. Early on during the war, boosters of Ukraine argued that Russia could be defeated through attrition. In this scenario, Ukraine would destroy the Russian army’s combat power, causing Russian forces to retreat or collapse. Many in the West contend that the war can be won on the ground. Ukraine and the West should therefore reconsider their ambitions and shift from a strategy of winning the war toward a more realistic approach: finding a diplomatic compromise that ends the fighting. But that view increasingly appears to be a fantasy. Ukraine’s leaders and its backers speak as if victory is just around the corner. A drawn-out conflict would be costly not only in terms of the loss of human life and economic damage but also in terms of escalation-including the potential use of nuclear weapons. The most likely outcome of the current strategy, then, is not a Ukrainian triumph but a long, bloody, and ultimately indecisive war. In Russia, the economy is autonomous enough and Putin’s grip tight enough that the president cannot be coerced into giving up those gains, either. In Ukraine, the Russian army is likely strong enough to defend most of its gains. With some combination of battlefield gains and economic pressure, the West can convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war-or convince someone in his circle to forcibly replace him.īut both theories of victory rest on shaky foundations. With help from the West, the argument runs, Ukraine can defeat Russia on the battlefield, either depleting its forces through attrition or shrewdly outmaneuvering it. Ukraine’s backers have proposed two pathways to victory. Indeed, it would be headed toward permanent enfeeblement-or in the words of US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, “weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” Given the vast costs it has already paid, along with the likelihood that Western economic sanctions against it would not be lifted anytime soon, Moscow would gain less than nothing from this war. Ukraine would recognize neither the annexation of Crimea nor the secessionist statelets in the Donbas and would continue down the path toward membership in the EU and NATO.įor Russia, such an outcome would represent a clear defeat. Russia would disgorge the territorial gains it has made since February. As Russian forces gain ground in Ukraine, that country’s president and allies all seem to agree: Ukraine must fight on to victory and restore the prewar status quo.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |