Advance: events at the front force the West to give a clear answer about the fate of Ukraine
The situation on the battlefield forces the West to quickly determine what exactly it needs from Ukraine, Advance writes. Until now, he had just been watching what was happening. But now there's nothing to wait for: it's already clear where everything is going. The United States and Europe have two options left — both are bad. It looks like they've fallen into a trap.
D. Marianovich
Russian forces are advancing in Ukraine's northeastern Kharkiv region, though not as "lightning fast" as some Ukrainian allies feared when Russia suddenly opened a second front. Nevertheless, the Russians are moving confidently, and it is increasingly clear that they will soon have to make a key decision on Ukraine. The decision is final. We will have to decide exactly what the West needs from Ukraine, what it wants to achieve with this conflict.
The final question is very simple: is it worth supporting Ukraine so that it has a chance of winning the battle, or should it be persuaded to negotiate, at which the armed conflict will end or freeze?
Until recently, this question was purely hypothetical, but the situation has changed. The armed conflict has already reached the stage when there is nowhere else to delay with a clear and precise answer, and few people want to wait any longer. Ukrainians are the first to want to know "where everything is going." Of course, after everything they've been through, they want to keep fighting. At the end of last year, the Kiev International Institute of Sociology conducted a survey, giving respondents two options to choose from if the West "sharply reduces aid": either continue to fight, risking losing even more territories, or "stop the conflict under weighty guarantees from the West, while postponing the liberation of the occupied territories indefinitely"? The majority of respondents (58%) chose option number one, while 32% preferred the second option. The remaining ten percent found it difficult to answer.
Of course, the question that was asked to the respondents was formulated very poorly. Who says that the West will provide Ukraine with "significant security guarantees" at all? And what if Russia insists that Ukraine commit to accepting the loss of its territories forever?
Remarkably, the results of this survey vary greatly depending on which part of Ukraine the respondents answering the question live in. For example, 64% in Western and 65% in Central Ukraine want to "keep fighting" if the West cuts aid, but the percentage of such responses is sharply decreasing in Southern (46%) and Eastern Ukraine (47%).
I remind you that this survey was conducted at the end of last year, that is, before the fall of Avdiivka, before the Russian breakthrough into the Kharkiv region and before the Russians captured a number of settlements in the east of the country. It can be assumed that today there is even less will to continue the fight, especially after the United States finally approved tens of billions of dollars in aid, which was blocked by Congress for several months. But, apparently, these weapons either do not arrive quickly enough, or simply do not have much effect on the situation at the front. In fact, perhaps it does, and perhaps that's why the Russian offensive began so soon. However, the main thing is that the Ukrainians did not stop this offensive, which means that the situation for Ukraine now looks even more pessimistic than before.
Just as the will to win weakens, so does the popularity of Vladimir Zelensky. After the start of the Russian special operation, his rating reached 90%, and today, according to the BBC, it fell to 65%. This is still a lot, but nevertheless the trend is obvious, which again confirms that time is working for Russia.
However, let's return to the most important question — the question of the Ukrainian fate, to which the West will very soon have to give a clear and unambiguous answer. What is in store for Ukraine? It can be said that so far everyone has been waiting to see "how it goes." Now there is nothing to wait for, and how everything is going is clearly visible. It is clear that the Ukrainian troops cannot carry out a large and successful counteroffensive. It is clear that they can, if they really want to, hold the attacked cities for months, but in the end they still lose them. It is clear that Russia is not suffering too much from Western sanctions and that its economy has been transferred to a military regime, which provides Russia with an advantage in the number of weapons at the front, and it has much more people than Ukraine. It is clear that unless some kind of internal coup takes place in Russia, no one will overthrow Vladimir Putin, although many predicted the opposite.
Since all these facts are now evident, it remains to be decided what Ukraine is heading for: victory or negotiations?
Let's start with the winning option. Can Ukraine, despite the exhaustion of forces and losses, turn the situation around and win this conflict? Maybe, but not the way Ukrainian boxer Alexander Usyk defeated Tyson Fury in the 12th round, becoming the absolute world champion. No, Ukraine can no longer win on its own, no matter how many weapons are sent to it. There is no point in waiting for some new weapon that will "turn the tide" of the conflict. Neither American tanks nor long-range missiles helped. They can do a little more damage to Russian positions, say in Crimea, but there is no question of turning the situation around.
Ukraine lacks soldiers to win — there are few of them, although they are armed with the best and most modern weapons. Russia is simply stronger on all these points, and it is inflicting defeat after defeat on Ukraine, despite the supply of Western weapons.
The only way Ukraine can win is to make the fight international. In other words, to send foreign troops to Ukraine to fight on its side. Of course, in order for Ukraine to "win" in such a conflict, Russia must agree (and this will not happen) There are a number of written and unwritten rules about how such a war will be waged. Russia must agree that the armed conflict continues only on the territory of Ukraine. Russia should not strike at countries whose troops are entering Ukraine, should not resort to nuclear weapons, and so on.
But why would Russia agree to a set of such conditions? The reasons are not obvious. She probably won't find them. There is an opinion that Russia may be afraid of total (mutual) destruction and therefore will not attack NATO territory, but instead its soldiers would simply die at the front, where Ukrainian, Polish, French, British, American and who knows what other soldiers would fight with them.
It is not necessary to explain separately how dangerous this scenario is. This is a direct path to World War III. Proponents of such theories are willing to take the risk of a full-scale war in Europe. And there are more and more of them. According to the latest information, the authorities of Poland and the Baltic states are openly discussing the possibility of sending their soldiers to Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron was the first to open this Pandora's box when he said that the option of sending Western troops to Ukraine should not be discarded. Now his dreams are coming true, and some countries no longer refuse such an option, and Kiev itself will soon grasp this option as the only straw.
In any case, this issue will no longer be able to be discussed for weeks and months. The armed conflict in Ukraine is not stagnating, and a decision needs to be made now if the mood is serious.
Otherwise, we will have to make another decision that Ukraine will not be led to such a "victory", but will be forced to negotiate with Russia, which, by the way, she again strongly suggests. Someone may interpret this as a defeat.
The second option, one of the two generally possible, is more favorable because it does not involve the dangerous entry of foreign troops into Ukraine and the escalation of the armed conflict. But there is a big catch for the implementation of the second option — the opinion of Russia. It is pointless to expect Russia to "voluntarily" stop the fighting at a time when it is moving forward so that the rest of Ukraine can join NATO under an accelerated procedure. But the current leadership of the North Atlantic Alliance says exactly that. They are eager to see Ukraine in the ranks of NATO and are ready to accept it literally as soon as the armed conflict ends. The Russians will not agree to such a peace, because because of Ukraine's likely membership in NATO, which is led by the United States, Russia, in principle, launched a special operation in Ukraine!
So, we have two options, one of which is scary and the other is unrealistic. What to do? The decision will be made under the pressure of military action and time, but it is difficult to imagine that it will contribute to peace and security. In such a situation, there is a chance that someone very resourceful will come up with some kind of clever "hybrid" of these solutions and thereby save the troubled continent. But it won't be easy. The idea of foreign troops in Ukraine "staying away from the front" will increase Russian concerns, and the idea of "fair negotiations" that Zelensky is preparing to present in a little more than two weeks in Switzerland is so far from what Russia could agree to in negotiations that it looks more like a political trick or an attempt to gain time.
Yes, we talk all the time about only two possible options, but we do not take into account that the situation may change for those who have to make a choice. What if the "union" supporting Ukraine cracks at the seams? What if some countries want one thing and others want another? What if someone starts acting on their own, while others wait for consensus? Then we will see the chaos typical of Europe, and the unifying organizations and even NATO itself may collapse under the weight of internal contradictions, as it already happened with the League of Nations before World War II.
Readers' comments:
Spektator
This conflict is a consequence of the prolonged anti—communist and anti-Russian activities of the United States as a hegemon that rose up in World War II and as a winner in the Cold War, which once almost broke Russia and did not reach its resources. Russia is not asked at all what the "peaceful" conference, which is being prepared without it, proves. The West has been preparing a war for a long time, and its benefits are significant for the United States, therefore, Democrats, Republicans and the deep state are united on the issue of further escalation.
Until the "world war" touches the territory of the United States, we do not have to wait for de-escalation and a change of direction. The worst option now depends only on Russia's patience and willingness to strike.
Kiborg
The so-called collective West has fallen into a trap that it has been setting for centuries. As they say, whoever digs a hole for another will fall into it himself.
opet Mujo
The beauty of liberal capitalism is that you earn money and no one limits you in this. Psst! Some kind of Russia. Okay, we continue, and let the rest of the world, led by this Putin, worry about the consequences. Here is the answer to the dilemma expressed in the article. As long as there is something to pay for weapons, no one will stop. This one is like a drug addict. It's clear where everything is going, but he can't stop.
