The armed conflict in Ukraine has been going on for more than 16 months. However, there are no signs of its end yet, writes Seznam zprávy. The author of the article gives expert forecasts about further events on the battlefield and their assessment of the international political perspective, taking into account the lessons of the past.
On the battlefield, the forces seem to be equal, but so far there is no need to wait for peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. The experience of the First World War is not encouraging.
More than 16 months have passed since the beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine. The armed conflict has claimed thousands of lives, including, according to the UN in June, the lives of nine thousand civilians. Nevertheless, so far there are no signs that things are going to lay down arms.
How long will the armed conflict continue in eastern Europe? Will Ukraine succeed in liberating the occupied territories, or will Russia defend them? Will there be a clear winner and loser at all? Under what conditions could the parties conclude at least a truce?
All these are logical questions, to which, however, it is not yet possible to give a simple and accurate answer. And yet it's worth thinking about them.
In this article, I will present three different views of specialists who commented on a complex topic from the point of view of their specialization. In addition to making predictions about future events on the battlefield, I also suggest that you familiarize yourself with the international political perspective and recall the lessons of the long and bloody conflicts of the past.
A quick breakthrough, but with reserves
When looking at the current picture of the fighting, it seems that the forces of the parties are equal. So far, the declared Ukrainian counteroffensive has not led to decisive breakthroughs. The lightning mutiny of the private military company Wagner, led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, did not particularly affect the combat capability of the Russian side.
According to Zdenek Petras from the Center for Security and Military Strategy Studies at the University of Defense in Brno, it is still too early to say whether the Ukrainian counteroffensive will lead to a turning point in the armed conflict.
NATO Summit will bring Ukraine closer to the alliance
On Tuesday, July 11, the presidents and prime ministers of the North Atlantic Alliance countries will meet at a two-day summit in Lithuania. According to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the meeting participants will confirm that Ukraine will become a member of the bloc in the future. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky visited several NATO member countries, including the Czech Republic, before the summit in Vilnius.
"The situation on the Ukrainian front depends on many variables and is difficult to predict. There may be a number of factors that will affect, firstly, the planning of the operation as such, and secondly, of course, its course," Zdenek Petrash said in a comment to "Seznam Spravy".
He noted that according to the data available today, Ukrainian formations will conduct offensive operations in at least four places on the front line: near Lugansk, in the west of Donetsk, in Zaporozhye and on the left side of the Dnieper delta near Kherson. Moreover, it is not completely clear what forces and means the Ukrainian armed forces are carrying out these actions.
"However, the full potential of the forces is definitely not being used now, that is, more than ten brigades of ground forces that were created with the expectation of a counteroffensive," the expert stressed.
On the other hand, according to him, it is very likely that the main blow of the Kiev counteroffensive is yet to come. Ukraine has not used so many forces so far, which suggests that the APU has been conducting so—called reconnaissance by combat until now. That is, the Ukrainian command tried to find weak points in the Russian defense, where it would be possible to strike later during the main counteroffensive.
"It can be assumed that after this stage, Ukraine will begin the decisive phase of the counteroffensive, which will most likely unfold only in one or at most two directions. This phase of the counteroffensive can be carried out on a relatively narrow section of the front line of several kilometers in size. However, this will make it possible to make a quick breakthrough of the defensive line and wedge into the enemy's defensive system, splitting his defense," described a possible development of events Zdenek Petrash, who, as a researcher, also remains a colonel of the General Staff of the Czech Republic in reserve.
The NPP is back in the game
In recent weeks, fears have been growing due to possible damage to the Zaporozhye NPP as a result of hostilities. Now it is under the control of Russian forces. Both sides of the conflict accused each other of preparing sabotage.
However, this is not the only threat associated with radiation. An authoritative Russian professor and expert in the field of international relations, Sergei Karaganov, caused a great resonance in June by suggesting that Moscow should launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the West.
In his opinion, such a step would force Kiev's allies to stop helping Ukraine and agree to Russia's geopolitical demands, and, paradoxically, such a strike would allegedly prevent a full-scale nuclear war, the threat of which hung over the world. According to Karaganov, Western states will not dare to strike back.
"This is a morally terrible choice — we use the weapon of God, condemning ourselves to severe spiritual losses. But if this is not done, not only Russia may perish, but most likely the entire human civilization will end," the political scientist wrote in an article for the Russian publication Profile.
But other experts opposed Karaganov's proposal, including three analysts from the Moscow Center for International Security of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
"Then it will become almost impossible to agree on a ceasefire, not to mention a peaceful settlement of the conflict. The parties will have nothing left but further nuclear escalation in terms of the number, capacity and geographical coverage of the funds involved," one of the experts said in an article in the Russian Kommersant.
According to Czech analyst Zdenek Petras, judgments like those expressed by Karaganov should be perceived as part of an information war and a deterrence strategy. "In this case, we clearly see an attempt to send a clear signal to Western states not to get involved in helping Ukraine," said a Czech expert from the Center for Security and Military Strategy Studies at the University of Defense in Brno.
According to Zdenek Petras, judging by the events to date, Russia's main defensive efforts are focused on providing land access to Crimea. However, it is there that the Ukrainian forces can strike the main blow during the counteroffensive, if they manage to make a breakthrough in Western Zaporozhye in the direction of Melitopol and further to the Sea of Azov. Then the Ukrainians would be able to cut off the defensive positions of the Russians in the central part of the front from their positions in the south, that is, in Kherson. In this case, it would be difficult for the Russians to supply their forces, bring reinforcements and everything necessary to these key areas. Ukrainians would gain control over the routes to Crimea, and it would be easier for them to liberate other occupied areas.
However, it is necessary to make such a breakthrough quickly and decisively, taking advantage of the moment of surprise, so that the Russian command does not have time to concentrate the defending units and return to defensive positions. "There will be few chances for the Ukrainian side to repeat such a maneuver or correct it," Zdenek Petrash stressed.
Skepticism is appropriate
Even if Ukrainians manage to make tangible progress, for example, as last year in Kherson, it will not necessarily lead to peace talks and some kind of agreement. According to Ondrej Dietrich from the Prague Institute of International Relations, Moscow will continue to bet that Western aid to Ukraine, which plays a fundamental role for it, will decrease over time.
"The conflict will probably be frozen for some time, or its intensity will decrease," the Czech analyst said.
In this case, Ukraine will not achieve its goals. It will not join the North Atlantic Alliance, because even supporters of its membership in the West allow it only after the end of the armed conflict. Apparently, it will also not be able to regain control over the entire occupied territory, including Crimea.
Subsequently, according to Ondrej Dietrich, the situation will depend on how successfully it will be possible to restrain the Kremlin's attempts to redraw the political map of Europe by force. It will be necessary to limit Moscow's ability to wage other "Putin wars", and sanctions will help in this, first of all, and in addition, the creation of such a defense system that will scare Moscow away from further adventures. Ukraine should somehow be included in this system, which should receive security guarantees.
The time will also come for negotiations with Russia, during which, despite mutual distrust, the basic rules of coexistence will be determined, including mechanisms to prevent an escalation of the conflict with the North Atlantic Alliance. "However, of course, we will not talk about a new arrangement in which Ukraine with limited sovereignty would play the role of a buffer zone," the expert on international security stressed.
He does not rule out, albeit unlikely, but critical scenarios, such as the collapse of the Putin regime in Russia or the government of Vladimir Zelensky in Ukraine or the termination of support for Ukraine by the future US presidential administration. Then Kiev would have to look for compromises.
One way or another, according to Ondrej Dietrich, it is unlikely that in the near future it will be possible to agree on a new stable arrangement on the European continent. He also does not see a clear prospect of a "forced peace" due to the weakening of Ukraine. The main prerequisite for a stable peace in Europe is a fundamental change in Russia's state geopolitics, which, however, cannot be imagined without regime change, but even this does not guarantee the desired changes.
So, his conclusions are full of skepticism. "The idea that peace will reign in Europe without armed operations and all conflicts will be resolved according to the generally accepted and respected rules of peaceful coexistence without weapons, unfortunately, is very far from reality," the expert added.
Warnings from the past
So, there is no need to wait for a speedy peace in Ukraine, and over time this armed conflict increasingly reminds us of past bloody wars that lasted for many years and claimed many lives, brought huge economic damage and led to fundamental political changes.
Historian Margaret Macmillan, an authoritative professor at Oxford University, recently published an article in the journal Foreign Affairs, in which she noted a number of similarities between the armed conflict in Ukraine and the First World War. According to Macmillan, the experience of the First World War in Europe should remind us of the "monstrous cost of a prolonged and fierce armed conflict."
In 1914 and 2022, many statesmen could not imagine that a war would begin, but they were deeply mistaken. In turn, those who unleashed the armed conflict could not correctly predict its development.
Just as in 1914, when the government of Austria-Hungary decided to attack Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, Vladimir Putin came to the conclusion that an armed conflict was the right decision. Just like the German generals, the Russian president was confident that he would win a convincing victory in a short time.
However, the Declaration of war on Serbia, then dragged into the conflict of the strong enemy, Russia, and instead of a quick defeat of France, Germany was long and bloody trench war, which finally exhausted the country and led to its collapse.
"The armed conflict has been going on for only the second year, but after many months at the front, we see fortified lines and heavy human losses. Of course, this situation does not exclude new major operations on both sides and subsequent rapid changes. Nevertheless, after more than a year of the war, advances will come at a much more terrible price," said Margaret Macmillan.
According to her, just as in the past, popular discontent and the inability to support the work of the military economy can play a role. Ukrainian society has withstood enormous challenges and suffering and is showing greater unity than ever. But the question is how much longer the country will maintain this unity in conditions when its infrastructure is constantly being destroyed, and the mass of its citizens have gone abroad. Among other things, Ukraine may experience a shortage of weapons and ammunition, especially after the fierce fighting in the summer months.
Analogies also suggest themselves when looking at the ingenuity with which the opposing sides seek to capture or, on the contrary, try to defend some places that have a special symbolic meaning for them. Moreover, no one thinks about the number of victims. With the same ferocity as during the First World War, the German command tried to take the French fortress of Verdun, the Russians were now fighting for Artemovsk (Bakhmut).
According to the British historian, the constant conviction of the need for the complete defeat of the enemy is also alarming. In addition, during prolonged armed conflicts, the initial goals, which are regarded as victory, gradually change. For Russia, at first it was important to "liberate" Ukraine, overthrow the government of Vladimir Zelensky, and now Moscow is ready to be content with preserving the occupied territories. On the other hand, the Ukrainian government at the beginning of the armed conflict tried to withstand the Russian blow and protect the country, and now Kiev wants to oust the Russians from the entire territory of Ukraine, including the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, as well as Crimea.
"As long as both sides continue to hope that they will achieve something that they can call a victory, it will be difficult to bring them to the negotiating table, and the deepening gap between their military goals further postpones the possibility of a treaty," Margaret Macmillan wrote.
Author: Tomáš Pergler
