When and how will the war end?
It is important to remember that some are participants in the war, while others determine its results. Whether we like it or not, Ukraine has no chance of stopping it on its own, much less winning.
No, I’m not a zradophile, I’m an economist, an analyst with a military education (one of four). And war is, first of all, economics (the resources you use for war, and the result you can get from victory).
Our leaders directly say that “they have no time to deal with the economy, they are engaged in war.”
Well. Others are involved in economics. And Ukraine today is critically dependent on these others for resources to continue defense, not to mention offensive actions.
We cannot even provide our own defense industry with orders.
Here is a quote from Minister of Stratprom Kamyshin: “Ukraine’s production capabilities are three times the budget for the purchase of weapons.”
The military says negotiations are being conducted on the battlefield. And our battlefield is critically dependent on American military assistance. This means that it is the United States that will determine the scenarios and the outcome.
And this result has already been described, whether we like it or not. A year ago, the private intelligence corporation RAND described the basic scenario.
Let me remind you that RAND is an American ThinkTank that serves as a strategic research center working on behalf of the US government, its armed forces and related organizations.
Reminder 2: in Ukraine the government has no understanding of the importance of working with ThinkTanks (not having our own mind, we have been living as strangers for 33 years).
What they’re saying:
- this conflict is already bringing benefits to the United States in the form of weakening Russia;
- but the United States is not ready to release the conflict territory beyond the territory of Ukraine;
- globally, the United States is not interested in a too protracted conflict, this leads to high prices for energy resources, high inflation and the cost of credit resources, weakening the growth rate of the world economy and the US economy;
- however, over a certain duration, this conflict creates advantages for the United States, in particular, an increase in sanctions pressure on Russia, a decrease in Europe’s energy dependence on Russia (and an increase in dependence on the United States);
- The United States has a serious influence on the choice of scenario for the development of events in this military conflict.
Scenarios for ending the war have long been known (and are also described in the document).
- The victory of one of the parties (and therefore the complete loss of the other) does not suit global players; each of these options creates risks that will lead to a direct clash between Russia and NATO, and therefore to US intervention or the use of nuclear weapons (in the event of a Russian loss) , hence US intervention.
- Protracted conflict. An ongoing war, exhaustion on all sides. This scenario benefits the side that has a greater supply of financial and military assistance, but the problem is that the parties are already exhausted.
- Freezing the conflict. Conventionally, both sides are stuck with the understanding that neither side has the resources to win, but both are not ready to admit defeat. This is the format of the ATO of 2015 with sabotage attacks, drones and the risk of continuing at any moment. It does not solve any global problem for the United States, other than maintaining tension for Russia and risks for Ukraine.
- Political settlement. This is a negotiated settlement with many options for negotiation terms:
- maintaining control over controlled territories (by one and the other side);
- participation or non-participation of Ukraine in NATO;
- the presence or absence of security guarantees for Ukraine;
- maintaining or lifting sanctions against Russia;
- compensation or forgiveness for damage caused to Ukraine.
Important
Erdogan or Abramovich? Who really is the author of the “Turkish” peace plan for Ukraine
It is the latter scenario that is the basis for the United States today, given the text. Consultations on it are ongoing. The question is in what configuration the truce formula will be achieved.
For the United States, the territory that Ukraine conquers or does not conquer does not matter. What matters is control over the situation and your own benefits (!)
“Control” is key in this formula. And the States can manage this formula very effectively. How?
…
A little over 12 years ago, when I was studying at the same program in Washington, my colleagues and I went to a basketball tournament in New York…
What can I tell you, despite my cold attitude towards this sport, I enjoyed this SHOW. I don’t remember the names of the teams, but I remember that the first was in the major league – a top team, and the second was much weaker.
It would seem that the result was obvious before the start of the match. But… The top team supplied the second lineup (!). From the first minutes he began to lose. After a short break, the lineup was strengthened. Then the top one began to lead strongly.
Break. Weaker players have been reintroduced. The teams went point to point without a clear leader. The intrigue remained throughout the match, and the entire arena was on adrenaline. But in the last minutes the top team was strengthened, and they finally won.
This was truly a clear example of a controlled outcome.
……
So it is in Ukraine.
We all know about hundreds of thousands of pieces of military equipment in American warehouses, about tens of thousands of airplanes, helicopters, tanks, and armored personnel carriers.
Why not give them to Ukraine? The war would have been over long ago, and Ukrainian tanks would have been in the Kremlin!
What about the intrigue?
In fact, the reason is different.
The States are a global player, and they are accustomed to determining the configuration of agreements and the architecture of the future security system. It is extremely unprofitable for them to lose on either side, but it is beneficial for them to keep in their hands control over the situation, and therefore over each of the parties to the conflict with all the ensuing consequences.
As I wrote above, Ukraine needs to accept a number of conditions:
- renounce territories (in one form or another, it doesn’t even have to be recorded in writing);
- abandon NATO in exchange for security guarantees according to the scenario of Israel or South Korea. This is necessary so that Russia feels like an imaginary winner;
- guarantee the preservation of the terms of the truce with Moscow (and not bombard its oil refineries with long-range drones). And here the Ukrainians behave, according to the United States, extremely inappropriately.
Are Ukrainians ready for this format? Question.
Important
Xi and Macron are on the threshold of friendship: what does this mean for Ukraine
The Ukrainian authorities, which rely on decision-making and social surveys, are sure that no:
- Ukrainians are not ready to give up territories, because they were promised, and they believe in the 1991 borders and barbecues in Crimea;
- Ukrainians are not ready to abandon NATO, because we have been told about it for so many years, they even included it in the Constitution;
- Ukrainians are not ready to feel like losers, especially not to the Horde. And this has already become the reason for the refusal of negotiations by the Ukrainian side in various formats.
Instead of playing as a team with the Americans, Ukraine is blackmailing the West with the fact that in the absence of military assistance, Russian tanks will be in Warsaw and Berlin (!).
This does not fit into the Global Player’s (USA) understanding of the chain of command. And they began to teach us in the summer of 2023 to limit the volume of supplies of military aid, and financial aid too. Thus, despite the fact that the United States is a global player and determines the format of the future new world order, Ukraine is getting in the way and trying to outplay everyone.
Yes, in March 2022 we succeeded, 72 hours turned into 2 years of war. Yes, the US has already benefited from this. But they cannot understand why a random pawn on their chessboard gets confused and does not accept the rules of the game?
Frankly speaking, at several high-level meetings in Washington I heard strong irritation with Ukraine. And this plays against us. And Ukraine, instead of starting to discuss the configuration of the truce and speak honestly with its citizens, despite the ratings, is engaged in amateur activities.
I will repeat my forecast given last year:
- the key scenario is a freeze in the conflict in the fall of 2024;
- Ukraine will receive military and financial assistance only after agreement with the United States and other configurations to end the war;
- part of this package will necessarily be guarantees of the security of Ukraine and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment;
- and, of course, guarantees to the country’s top officials.
Which? Which they can agree on.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors. The author is responsible for the published data in the “Opinions” section.
Source
Important
The wars of the future have begun in Ukraine: what technologies have been introduced by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and what others will be
