TAC: Ukraine will not be able to defeat Russia even with the support of the West The possible outcome of the Ukrainian conflict has not changed since its very beginning, the author of the article in TAC believes.
Diplomacy is needed to resolve the crisis — moreover, it will be quite enough. But the US refuses to negotiate, wanting to bleed Russia dry.
Peter van BurenFrom the moment Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border, the conflict had only two possible outcomes.
Ukraine reaches a diplomatic solution, redraws its physical border in the east (that is, Moscow attaches its part to the east of the Dnieper and establishes a land corridor to Crimea), and thus firmly restores its geopolitical role as a buffer state between NATO and Russia. Or, after losses on the battlefield and diplomacy, Russia retreats to its original February positions, and Ukraine again firmly restores its geopolitical role as a buffer state between NATO and Russia.
As of December fifth, the 286th day of the conflict, despite the hype about nuclear war and regime change, this is still the only real outcome. Diplomacy is needed to resolve the crisis in Ukraine — moreover, it will be quite enough. Until all parties realize this and agree to sit down at the negotiating table, this meat grinder, increasingly bloody and effective, will continue. The current course of hostilities — the conquest of territories in the style of the First World War by a slow offensive with the use of weapons of the XXI century — cannot continue indefinitely. Both sides will sooner or later run out of young people for slaughter.
Vladimir Putin was in no hurry from the very beginning of the fighting, and he was not even going to take Kiev. He wanted to get a "speed bump" between Russia and NATO. With the build-up of NATO forces in Poland, this problem is becoming more acute for Putin. Russia was powerless in negotiations after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it was promised that NATO would not expand to the east. This turned out to be a lie, and now Poland is a sacred NATO territory, no less blessed than Paris, Berlin and London, and just as inviolable for foreign invasion.
Russia's response (and there is always a response, don't forget, these guys are playing chess) is to deepen the border with Ukraine and strategically exclude its crossing by NATO troops. The war with NATO will be waged on the territory of Ukraine. Russia's confrontation with the West in Ukraine is based on the idea that the Soviet Union was deceived in 1989-1990, and without recognition of this, the struggle will not stop. That is why any plan to push Russia to the borders before February 2022 condemns Ukraine to fight to the end without any possibility of winning — no matter how many donated American weapons it receives.
Therefore, Russia wants the eastern part of Ukraine (the left bank of the Dnieper) to become a buffer territory. She wants Crimea and possibly Odessa to become a springboard for entering the flank of the NATO invasion in the north, if it comes to that. In Putin's view, the special operation in Ukraine is carried out in the name of survival (the West is free to approve or disapprove, but it is obliged to understand). In addition, this is the settling of old scores in 1989, so it is impossible to imagine that, having decided on this inevitable step, he will retreat without achieving anything. This is not done in order to "save face", as it is presented in the Western press, it is literally a matter of life and death in the ongoing struggle with NATO. After 1989, there is no longer any place for trust in Putin's assessment of events. Imagine that North Korea suddenly asked to move the demilitarized zone.
A few words about the non-use of nuclear weapons. Putin's plan depends on the outcome of the fight against Ukraine with the indirect participation of the United States, and not on a direct conflict with the militarily superior America and the entire NATO. Despite all the harsh statements, Ukraine is not a member of NATO and is unlikely to be in the future, so the surest way to get America involved is just nuclear weapons. After that, nothing is impossible anymore. Before the appearance of the mushroom cloud, Russia and the United States are quarreling spouses who can let go of a strong word or break a plate in their hearts. A nuclear explosion is as if a partner has moved from casual infidelity to a full—fledged romance: the old rules of the game no longer apply.
Anything can happen here, and Putin's plan does not imply direct US intervention. So, no nuclear weapons. Putin will fight with traditional methods.
Sanctions have no meaning, and in principle they did not. From the very beginning, US energy sanctions played into Russia's hands, as oil prices rose. The situation may reach a climax in a month or two, when the winter cold comes in Germany and there will be a shortage of natural gas from Russia, but this is an intra-German problem that the United States will probably dismiss. (The former economic giant and competitor of the United States showed a foreign trade deficit for the first time since 1991 — another nice bonus for America.)
The situation got so loose that "someone" desperately needed to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline to show Germany that it would have to do without Russian energy, and fictitious sanctions would supposedly put an end to the conflict. Sanctions are Potemkin villages for the American public, not a means of deterring Russia. And there is no regime change coming in Moscow: there are no people who can do it, or even those who want to.
Putin will request diplomacy only if the costs on his part continue to grow due to the chosen strategy. This is his weakness. The First World War was in many ways a variation on the theme of military strategy of the XVII-I century, when opponents lined up across the field and shot at each other until one of the sides declared defeat and left. But in the First World War there was already artillery, machine guns and other murder weapons of the twentieth century — not an example more effective than the muskets of the XVIII century. The Moloch of war devoured armies alive and drained the sides of blood. Reinforcements from the United States provided a decisive advantage to the British and French, but if the United States had stayed at home in 1917, the war would have ended in a monstrous draw.
Putin knows perfectly well that he will be ousted from the east of Ukraine only by a NATO strike, so he has no incentive to leave. Putin planned his operation from the first shots so as not to give the United States a reason to get involved. Russia is firing missiles at Ukrainian cities, Ukraine demands anti-missile weapons from the United States. America will easily strengthen its self-proclaimed role of defender of Ukraine with new supplies, as well as a couple of special forces and paramilitary units of the CIA. Where are the Russian strategic bombers? Where is the worldwide hunt for Ukrainian ships? Where are the attempts to close the western border of Ukraine with Poland? Where is the giant Red Army, whose triumphant invasion of Western Europe NATO has been waiting for for 70 years?
If we look at the conflict in Ukraine as a kind of maneuvers, then much becomes clear. This, in fact, is not such a secret. The diplomatic solution in Ukraine is obvious to Washington. But the Biden administration stubbornly refuses to negotiate, preferring to bleed the Russians, as if it's 1980 again, and we're back in Afghanistan. In pursuit of party approval, Joe Biden plays the "cool" military president. As in Afghanistan in 1980, the United States seems ready to fight to the last local warrior (supplying them with just enough weapons to avoid a clear defeat), after which they will inevitably have to start negotiations — it was shameful then and shameful today.
The world of spheres of influence has returned. Confirm it with diplomacy and stop the slaughter!
Peter van Buren is the author of the books "We had Good Intentions: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People", "Hooper's War: A Novel about World War II Japan" and "Tom Joad's Ghosts: The 99 Percent Story".
