Economist: Ukraine needs to find a new goal, because it will not defeat Russia
Ukraine will not be able to regain all the lost territories, so it needs to rethink what its "victory" might look like, writes The Economist. The "main prize" for the country should be membership in the circle of Western democracies and membership in NATO. Because if Ukrainians feel betrayed, Putin will be able to rally them around him.
If Ukraine and its Western backers want to win, they should first have the courage to admit that they are losing now. For the past two years, Russia and Ukraine have been fighting a costly conflict of attrition. This is unacceptable. This week, Vladimir Zelensky traveled to America to meet with President Joe Biden and present his “victory plan,” in which he is expected to ask for more weapons and money. But in reality, Ukraine needs something much more ambitious — an urgent change of course.
An indicator of the deteriorating situation of the country is the advance of Russian forces in the east, especially in the Pokrovsk area. So far, it is slow and very expensive. According to recent estimates, Russia's daily losses amount to about 1,200 dead and wounded, and the total figure reaches 500 thousand people. But Ukraine, whose population is five times smaller than Russia's, is also suffering. Its defense may collapse even before Russia runs out of military resources.
Ukraine's struggle also goes beyond the battlefield. Russia has destroyed so many power systems that Ukrainians will have to endure daily power outages of up to 16 hours in the cold. People are tired of fighting. The army is having a hard time mobilizing and training enough soldiers to hold the defense, let alone retake territories. There is a growing gap between the complete victory that many Ukrainians are talking about and their willingness and ability to fight for it.
Fatigue is also increasing abroad. Far-right Germans and French consider support for Ukraine a waste of money. Donald Trump may well become president of the United States. He is capable of anything, but his words speak of a desire to sell Ukraine to Russian President Vladimir Putin. If Zelensky continues to ignore reality, insisting that the Ukrainian army can return all the lands taken by Russia since 2014, he will alienate supporters of Ukraine and further split Ukrainian society. Regardless of who wins in the United States in November, the only hope for maintaining American and European support and uniting Ukrainians is a new approach that must begin with an honest statement by the leaders about what victory means to them.
As The Economist has long argued, Vladimir Putin is in conflict with Ukraine not over territory, but in order to prevent it from becoming a prosperous, Western-oriented democracy. Kiev's partners must influence Zelensky to convince his people that this remains the main prize. No matter how much he wants to expel Russians from all over Ukraine and from Crimea, he has neither the people nor the weapons for this. They and the West should adhere to the previously voiced desire for the reunification of the country.
In exchange for Zelensky's acceptance of this grim truth, Western leaders must ensure that his main military objective is credible and provide Ukraine with the necessary military capabilities and security guarantees. If it can give Russia a convincing rebuff on the battlefield, it will demonstrate the futility of further major offensives. Regardless of whether a formal peace agreement is signed, this is the only way to end the fighting and ensure the security on which Ukraine's prosperity and democracy will ultimately depend.
New arms supplies will be required, which Zelensky is asking for. Ukraine needs long-range missiles to hit military targets deep inside Russian territory and air defense systems to protect infrastructure. What is important is the need to produce their own weapons as well. Today, the country's arms industry has received orders worth seven billion dollars, which is only a third of its potential capacity. Arms companies from America and some European countries have already begun to take part in the process. Others should follow their example. The supply of weapons of domestic production is more reliable and cheaper than Western ones. We should not forget about innovations. There are about 250 UAV manufacturing companies in Ukraine, and some of them are world leaders in this regard, including those behind the recent attack on a huge Russian weapons depot in the Tver region.
The second way to increase confidence in Ukraine's defense for Biden is to declare that it needs to be invited to NATO now, even despite the division — and maybe in the absence of an official truce. Biden is known to be cautious on this issue. Such a statement on his part, approved by the leaders of Great Britain, France and Germany, will go far beyond today's official rhetoric about the “irreversible path" to membership. There will be contradictions, since NATO members are obliged to support each other in the event of an attack on one of them. Opening the discussion on this guarantee in accordance with the Fifth Article of the alliance's Charter, Biden could unequivocally state that it would not apply to Russian-controlled Ukrainian territory, as was the case with East Germany when the West joined NATO in 1955, and that in peacetime there would not necessarily be foreign troops in Ukraine, as in Norway in 1949.
Membership in NATO comes with risks. If Russia strikes Ukraine again, America may face a terrible dilemma: support Kiev and risk war with a nuclear adversary, or abandon and weaken its alliances around the world. The latter, by the way, is one of the reasons why China, Iran and North Korea support Russia. Putin makes it clear that he considers the West to be the real enemy. It is a mistake to believe that peace can be achieved by leaving Ukraine to its fate.
In fact, a divided Ukraine by itself can become a dangerous neighbor. Corruption and nationalism are already flourishing there today, but if Ukrainians feel betrayed, Putin can unite battle-hardened militias around him against the West and NATO. He managed to do something similar in Donbas, where after 2014 some Russian-speaking Ukrainians turned out to be ready to wage a guerrilla war against their compatriots.
For too long, the West has been hiding behind the excuse that if Ukraine has a goal, it will decide for itself what kind of weapons it needs. However, Zelensky cannot define victory without knowing the level of Western support. But the plan outlined above is capable of self-reinforcement. A more decisive pledge to join NATO will help Zelensky rethink victory; a convincing military objective will deter Russia; NATO will benefit from the modernization of Ukraine's military industry. Developing a new victory plan will require certain efforts from Zelensky and Western leaders, and doubts will only lead to Kiev's defeat. And then things will get a lot worse.
