How Will the War End?
Thread Starter
Bergerie1 thank you, I’ve just listened to Margaret MacMillan’s excellent podcast. It emphasises the importance for decision makers of studying history when confronted with a modern repeat. Also that wars generally don’t end cleanly and decisively.
With this in mind I wonder again about the outcome for the Ukraine war in terms of their hopes for NATO membership. Whether Ukraine defeats Russia on the battlefield, or there is regime change in the Kremlin, or a stalemate or ceasefire, presumably NATO has to feel confident that the war is over in all respects. But it seems to me unlikely that Russia would ever give the assurances they need; in fact the opposite is more likely, with perhaps continuing border skirmishes just to ‘keep the pot boiling’. Furthermore, as Margaret MacMillan points out about earlier wars, personalities of the time are (were) so important and can influence the course of history – Hitler and Churchill obviously come to mind.. Putin has already done so, and who’s to say that in a notionally ‘defeated’ and humiliated Russia he (or a successor) couldn’t again raise the standard, pile all the blame on the West and NATO, and lead his nation back into war.
Maybe Ukraine NATO membership is just a bridge too far, and has to be sacrificed for some sort of peaceful outcome.
With this in mind I wonder again about the outcome for the Ukraine war in terms of their hopes for NATO membership. Whether Ukraine defeats Russia on the battlefield, or there is regime change in the Kremlin, or a stalemate or ceasefire, presumably NATO has to feel confident that the war is over in all respects. But it seems to me unlikely that Russia would ever give the assurances they need; in fact the opposite is more likely, with perhaps continuing border skirmishes just to ‘keep the pot boiling’. Furthermore, as Margaret MacMillan points out about earlier wars, personalities of the time are (were) so important and can influence the course of history – Hitler and Churchill obviously come to mind.. Putin has already done so, and who’s to say that in a notionally ‘defeated’ and humiliated Russia he (or a successor) couldn’t again raise the standard, pile all the blame on the West and NATO, and lead his nation back into war.
Maybe Ukraine NATO membership is just a bridge too far, and has to be sacrificed for some sort of peaceful outcome.
Video Mixdown, The problem was that Germany did not surrender at the end of WW1, it was an armistice. Therefore, Hitler was able to fire up the lingering sense of grievance and injustice that eventually led to WW2. There are probably quite a lot of Russian politicians and military people who could replace Putin and do the same if Russia is left in a similar situation after the cessation of hostilities. Did you listen to Margaret MacMillan's talk?
P.S. Thank you mods for moving my post to a more appropriate thread
P.S. Thank you mods for moving my post to a more appropriate thread
Last edited by Bergerie1; 13th Jul 2023 at 17:04. Reason: Adding my P. S.
The following users liked this post:
Ukraine have said that all Russian forces must leave all of Ukraine’s territory, so one assumes that talks about ending the war would not start before then. And that still leaves the not trivial matters of financial reparations, and justice for the war crimes committed, both of which presumably Ukraine would insist on being addressed to its satisfaction.
The second part, reparations and bringing war criminals to justice, simply isn't going to happen, ever.
That's a very bold assertion. Who would be surprised if we woke up tomorrow to hear that Putin had come to a sticky end? His successor may very well want to wash his hands of such people and be prepared to cooperate in return for lifting sanctions unfreezing assets and resuming normal diplomatic relations. Because of Russia's history we tend to automatically predict gloomy outcomes, but who knows?
Never say never!
Minsk agreement 1991?
In 1991 Ukraine was the fourth largest nuclear power after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I was under the impression that Russia, US, UK and France pledged to guarantee Ukraines security in the event of an attack provided that they gave up their nuclear weapons to Russia. Why are the Western allies reneging on their commitments?
In 1991 Ukraine was the fourth largest nuclear power after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I was under the impression that Russia, US, UK and France pledged to guarantee Ukraines security in the event of an attack provided that they gave up their nuclear weapons to Russia. Why are the Western allies reneging on their commitments?
For comparison, Ukraine '22/23, Hungary '56, Czechoslovakia '68 (no guarantees or commitments in place).
Czechslovakia 68 (which I remember) and Hungary 56 (which I don’t) were countries that were deemed to be in the Soviet Union sphere of influence. After the breakup of the Union in 1991 that sphere of influence largely ceased to exist. I do not remember the US or UK having a treaty with Czechslovakia or Hungary. However there is a treaty with Ukraine.
In 1991 Ukraine was the fourth largest nuclear power after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I was under the impression that Russia, US, UK and France pledged to guarantee Ukraines security in the event of an attack provided that they gave up their nuclear weapons to Russia. Why are the Western allies reneging on their commitments?
WWI produced regime collapses in both Russia and Germany. German civilians were protesting food shortages.
It's hard to know what is going on inside the Russian military. More mutiny(ies) may be afoot, but we only see faint glimmers.
Whatever the reports of shortages, the Russians do seem so far to have enough supplies, manpower and fixed defenses to bog down Ukrainian advances. Gains are measured in single digit kilometres.
Barring a sudden regime change or collapse, this war could continue for some years. The determinant will be who runs out of materiel and/or manpower first. Its lesser population requires Ukraine to carefully husband manpower.
Ukraine would do well to develop long range weapons that can drop and keep dropped every railroad bridge in occupied territory and 50-100 km inside the Russian border. Anything striking inside Russian territory has to be of Ukraine manufacture.
It's hard to know what is going on inside the Russian military. More mutiny(ies) may be afoot, but we only see faint glimmers.
Whatever the reports of shortages, the Russians do seem so far to have enough supplies, manpower and fixed defenses to bog down Ukrainian advances. Gains are measured in single digit kilometres.
Barring a sudden regime change or collapse, this war could continue for some years. The determinant will be who runs out of materiel and/or manpower first. Its lesser population requires Ukraine to carefully husband manpower.
Ukraine would do well to develop long range weapons that can drop and keep dropped every railroad bridge in occupied territory and 50-100 km inside the Russian border. Anything striking inside Russian territory has to be of Ukraine manufacture.
Well said, RBF, you captured what I was thinking pretty well.
The war will end when one side runs out of the will (RU) or the means (UKR) and not before.
The war will end when one side runs out of the will (RU) or the means (UKR) and not before.
Putin knows very well that Russia will not be able to gain any more territory from Ukraine.
HIs best hope now is to be able to hold on to most of the territory they have gained. Remember that he has called this A Special Military Operation and not a War. He will hope that the West grows tired of its hugely expensive support to Ukraine and gradually winds down its support leaving Russia having gained control of some of Ukraine for which he will claim as victory.
HIs best hope now is to be able to hold on to most of the territory they have gained. Remember that he has called this A Special Military Operation and not a War. He will hope that the West grows tired of its hugely expensive support to Ukraine and gradually winds down its support leaving Russia having gained control of some of Ukraine for which he will claim as victory.
Or give Ukraine all they need and it will be over in weeks!
Thread Starter
Returning to my original point, I still wonder if, when the war "ends", it will sufficiently meet NATO's criteria to enable them to offer membership to Ukraine. I have looked but there don't appear to be any specific conditions in print that cover the situation of an aspiring country (eg Ukraine) currently engaged in armed conflict. The communique issued at the end of the Vilnius conference said that "Ukraine would receive an invitation when allies agree and conditions are met' "
What these conditions are is not specified but one assumes they include the cessation of the existing military conflict, the key word being "cessation". Of course Putin never said Russia was going to war with Ukraine, merely that Russia was undertaking a Special Military Operation. Maybe this is now in Ukraine's favour, that in fact there is no war on-going with Russia!
What these conditions are is not specified but one assumes they include the cessation of the existing military conflict, the key word being "cessation". Of course Putin never said Russia was going to war with Ukraine, merely that Russia was undertaking a Special Military Operation. Maybe this is now in Ukraine's favour, that in fact there is no war on-going with Russia!
Returning to my original point, I still wonder if, when the war "ends", it will sufficiently meet NATO's criteria to enable them to offer membership to Ukraine. I have looked but there don't appear to be any specific conditions in print that cover the situation of an aspiring country (eg Ukraine) currently engaged in armed conflict. The communique issued at the end of the Vilnius conference said that "Ukraine would receive an invitation when allies agree and conditions are met' "
What these conditions are is not specified but one assumes they include the cessation of the existing military conflict, the key word being "cessation". Of course Putin never said Russia was going to war with Ukraine, merely that Russia was undertaking a Special Military Operation. Maybe this is now in Ukraine's favour, that in fact there is no war on-going with Russia!
What these conditions are is not specified but one assumes they include the cessation of the existing military conflict, the key word being "cessation". Of course Putin never said Russia was going to war with Ukraine, merely that Russia was undertaking a Special Military Operation. Maybe this is now in Ukraine's favour, that in fact there is no war on-going with Russia!
Nope, what they gain now gives them the keys to all of Eastern Europe. As an example, How large a slice of Wales would you like to offer so that Russia does not take it all?
IG
Last edited by Imagegear; 14th Jul 2023 at 16:34.
sometimes I 'd pay them to take it all.....................
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 477
Received 312 Likes
on
146 Posts
If that were to happen, then I think the current trajectory of operations would change
Well I don't want to derail the thread and I also don't want to put words into your or anyone's mouth, but I wonder what the 2024 US elections will bring, given that there are several potential candidates at various levels who have suggested that they would not support or continue giving arms to Ukraine if they had the ability to stop it
If that were to happen, then I think the current trajectory of operations would change
If that were to happen, then I think the current trajectory of operations would change
I return to my earlier theme about the parallels between the ending of WW1 and how this war in Ukraine might end now in the 21st Century. Such parallels are not always the same, history does not necessarily repeat itself. But take a look at this video of a lecture by Professor David Stevenson describing the lead up to the armistice of November 1918. He relates the circumstances of the politics, finanaces, logistics and military/ civil morale at the time in Germany and the Western Allies. What are the right conditions and terms for having a cease fire? And what might be the implications for the future? It is worth contemplating these things.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqJsKRtiBOQ&amp;t=625s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqJsKRtiBOQ&t=625s</a>
My prediction:
About this time next year active hostilities end with Crimea formally seeded to Russia but all the other border’s returned to the 1991 lines. Russia gets to a point where the effects of the war are felt by the average Russians in a way that Putin can’t ignore while at the same time the Alliance supporting Ukraine get donor fatigue from their population in a way that Western politicians can’t ignore. Ukraine is forced to accept a compromise on their objectives for continued support.
Russia gets to save face with a “win” in Crimea, a place with strong historical ties to Russia. Ukraine gets security guarantees including a fast track to join NATO.
Nobody will be happy, so this IMO is the mostly likely outcome.
The nightmare is Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons in an “escalate to de-escalate” strategy to force regime change in Ukraine. He will be banking on the West to not have the stones to directly engage him, an uncomfortably possible outcome…..
About this time next year active hostilities end with Crimea formally seeded to Russia but all the other border’s returned to the 1991 lines. Russia gets to a point where the effects of the war are felt by the average Russians in a way that Putin can’t ignore while at the same time the Alliance supporting Ukraine get donor fatigue from their population in a way that Western politicians can’t ignore. Ukraine is forced to accept a compromise on their objectives for continued support.
Russia gets to save face with a “win” in Crimea, a place with strong historical ties to Russia. Ukraine gets security guarantees including a fast track to join NATO.
Nobody will be happy, so this IMO is the mostly likely outcome.
The nightmare is Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons in an “escalate to de-escalate” strategy to force regime change in Ukraine. He will be banking on the West to not have the stones to directly engage him, an uncomfortably possible outcome…..