The thread on thoughts over time as to how and when the Ukraine war will end

[Torie]

I think this deserves its own thread, as to how the Ukraine War will be resolved. If Virginia thinks otherwise, she can merge it into the day by day, hour by hour thread, with the good stuff and the spam stuff, and the propaganda stuff (I really, really dislike those videos of the killing played to patriotic, or even worse, rock music - yuck - death is not uplifting!), the good, the bad and the ugly, all wrapped up into one.

Anyway, the Guardian has an article on the subject of possible end games.  

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/24/how-might-the-ukraine-war-end

Here is another that I found singularly worthless (there are a lot like these out there):

https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end/

Myself, I don’t see either side agreeing to any written peace agreement, or even a cease fire. If Putin gave up his gains, he’s dead. Zelensky cannot not and will sign away any Ukrainian territory, certainly not any territory taken by Putin in the past year.

So that leaves us where? It seems to me given the West’s problems in producing arms, and general disorganization, that it’s unlikely that any time soon, Ukraine will have the amount of munitions it needs, and high-tech stuff it needs, to wear down Russian forces and slice through its lines. But Ukraine will have enough to probably hold most of what it still has. It seems more likely that despite the utter horror of it all, the blood and costs and trade disruptions will just go on and on, certainly through the Biden presidency.

So, the issue is does the West, and in particular the US, or Biden at least, just keep doing what it is doing, the stalemate sort of potential solution, and just suck up all the attendant horrors etc. as described above, as the 2024 election is conducted (frightening thought that really given who the most likely opposition to Biden is at present), or does the US and UK (Germany and France seem to be increasingly beside the point), ramp it up, and over time get to Ukraine much more lethal weapons, with the armaments industry ramped up, so that maybe this fall, or maybe next year, or maybe the year after, Ukraine finally has what it takes to slice through, and Putin to be pushed out of a window?

I really don’t know which is more likely to happen, but one of the two options, a seeming never ending stalemate type war that goes on for a very long time, with spurts of activity and them maybe less activity, or a gradually ramp up of Ukraine’s capacities, that finally tips the balance, and Russia and Putin go down, seem to be by far the most likely.

I suppose a codicil is just how realistic is it to have a deal where Ukraine signs away Crimea, and Russia signs away the rest, and to the West, with Ukraine a part of the West, militarily and otherwise. I don’t think that is very realistic either.

More and more experts don’t see any end game really, with neither side being able to agree to much of anything, and they just kind of throw up their hands, and see nothing but an endless war with no end in sight, or offer up scenarios I find wholly unrealistic (signing pieces of paper and peace is at hand) and thus this thread. The experts are just not much help as to what the end game will actually end up being, and when. It is probably not their fault. This war is just that horrible, and Putin that sociopathic.

Anyway, given the current intellectual vacuum on the topic, the idea here is to discuss end games and how long it will take, as events unfold, and more information becomes available. It is not to discuss the events of the day in Ukraine, and certainly not to post spam, or anything remotely like it. It's about focusing like a laser beam on this one topic.

To start, I have posted my rambling thoughts. What are yours, be they rambling or incisive?

Thank you.

[Torie]

I take it your 4 possible endings are in order of likelihood. How about the when bit? If long enough out, then one of yours might come close to matching the endless war scenario that I listed as one of the two most likely "endings," at the moment.

[Torie]

Getting whomever runs Russia at the time to believe that it is quite likely that it will lose Crimea with the land and sea bridges severed and ordinance raining down on it, seems perhaps one of the more promising ways to persuade it to smell the roses and cut its losses.

[Torie]

I believed the Donbass would become another example of a classic Russian "frozen conflict". Putin had other ideas. He seems to truly believe in the "Slavic Trinity" of Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians as one people. This war isn't about NATO. You don't go to war over one country planning to join a military alliance, with said alliance keeping that country decades away from receiving actual membership. Unless Putin has truly lost his marbles, there's no way he truly thought "the West" was planning to invade or attack Russia. More than anything this is about Putin not wanting to be the Russian leader to "lose" Ukraine. This applies in both the geopolitical/strategic (losing economic and political influence to the EU/NATO) and cultural contexts (losing a brother people, part of the "Greater Russian nation").

Blinken clearly agrees with you. As you no doubt have heard, Blinken got Lavrov in a room alone a couple of months before the invasion, which Blinken knew was coming, unless Putin chose to change course, and asked him if the Russian concern was about security, and NATO expansion, in which event talks he thought would be productive and allay Russia's concerns, or was it about Putin mystical belief in a restoration of the Slavic Trinity that overrode any other consideration. Lavrov said nothing in response and left the room.

So if Putin will never give up his mystical beliefs, predicting the future needs to take that into account.

[Torie]

Nice post Dereich. I very much appreciate the thoughtful contributions made by participants in the thread, which is basically all of you. Thank you!

"The war at that point turns into something like a stalemate with Russia eventually getting Crimea, most of Luhansk and about the half of Donetsk they control now plus or minus bits like Mariupol or Bakhmut."

Is the "get" word that you used by virtue of a written deal, or just where the lines are where when further fighting seems no longer feasible or productive as perceived by both Russia and Ukriane, and Ukraine gets something more that they can count on from the West going forward, that Russia going for a redux will be met by NATO military assets in addition to Ukraine's, so it is willing to go with that particular Hobson's choice from its point of view?

It goes without saying that Ukraine will need a lot of foreign aid, once we know that that reconstruction will not be subject to again be reduced to rubble. That will give America first people, and the usual suspects elsewhere, something else to complain about. May they all, in the absence of hell, be put on ignore.

[Torie]

...and a fast track EU application process.

There is no such thing as a fast track EU application process; and if there were, I don't see how Ukraine would qualify for it. In fact, I don't think it is likely that Ukraine will join the EU in the next 20+ years. Regardless of the war, it is a poor and deeply corrupt (Rank 116 in Transparency International's CPI – below the likes of Malawi, Morocco and Peru) country with countless structural flaws and a population large enough to be of serious concern. Given the heated debates about free movement rights and social benefits for 19 million Romanians and 7 million Bulgarians, I honestly fail to see how a majority in the European Council would be happy to have 43+ million Ukrainians joining the club. Especially since this would impose an enormous financial strain on the EU's budget.

Creating the impression that Ukraine may be joining the EU as some sort of reward (for what? for being attacked?) is certainly a nice performative gesture. But once the war is over – or has disappeared from the headlines – the priorities in Brussels will be different ones.

Ukraine joining the EU will certainly take a long time. The benchmarks countries must meet to join the bloc aren't easy to reach.

In my opinion corruption isn't as big of an issue as how poor Ukraine is, to joining the EU. 116th is certainly bad, but it's not that far from other EU candidate countries. North Macedonia 85th, Moldova 91st, Albania and Serbia 101st, and Bosnia and Herzegovina 111th in Transparency International's CPI. 

Meanwhile, Ukraine (and Moldova) are significantly poorer than the Balkan candidate countries. Brussels would be very hesitant to grant membership to such a poor populous country, for the reasons you already mentioned. In fact, the only country to join the EU with a population similar to the size of Ukraine since the fall of communism is Poland. The worst outcome would be a larger Hungary, where an entrenched corrupt Ukrainian political elite uses EU funds for their own enrichment, not having any credible political opposition to keep them in check. The fear of an outcome like that would be another reason why the European Council would be weary of allowing Ukraine into the EU.

2021 GDP per capita, active EU candidate countries (from the World Bank, in USD):

Montenegro:                  $9,466
Sebia:                           $9,230
Bosnia and Herzegovina: $7,143
North Macedonia:           $6,695
Albania:                         $6,493
Moldova:                       $5,231
Ukraine:                        $4,836

Here is the chart of nations. I see that certain tax haven more commonly known as Ireland has now broken into six figures at 100K+. Bless them. Even if I were a "Prot" in NI, I would want to hook up with them ASAP.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true

[Torie]

The thrust of this article is that a "forever war" is most likely, with pessimism that there is a viable way out of the forever box.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/3/2/what-history-shows-how-will-the-war-in-ukraine-end