Holiday-makers in Crimea recording the explosions at Saki air base, which destroyed at least nine Russian aircraft. From the start the course of this war has been charted in two ways. The first is on maps. Progress has been measured by territory acquired; prospects identified by territory in contention; challenges described by territory still to be taken. We will know the war has ended when either Russia has made sufficient gains to satisfy Putin or else Ukraine has taken back Russia’s past gains. The second is by losses. Claims have been made about how many people have been killed and wounded and how much equipment has been destroyed, damaged and abandoned. We will know the war has ended when either Russia or Ukraine has exhausted its capabilities and can no longer continue with the fight. These two measures are related. The consequences of exhaustion are assumed to be most likely felt in the battle for territory. For now, neither measure appears to point to a clear victor. To see where this war is tending, therefore, it is necessary to look beyond both the maps and the lists of losses.
"The debates in the West on whether support for Ukraine will drain away as the economic pain intensifies and ‘war fatigue’ steps in have acquired a routine quality but all one can say is that so far this has not happened"
The projected energy prices in Europe this winter would suggest much more econmic pain is coming. Perhaps Moscow is confident this will be the decisive strategic factor?
My own thinking on this: the key allies for the Ukraine are the US and Poland. Even if Germany and France did "cave in to Moscow", do they have the leverage to force Ukraine to stop fighting? I would argue no. As long as the USA is happy to provide weapons, and Poland is happy to accomodate the logistics bases need to support this, Ukraine can continue to fight.
I often read that a long war of attrition will favour Russia. I'm not so sure. The Ukrainians aren't going anywhere and Russia looks like it will never capture Kiev. I'm inclined to think the Europeans and America will be happy to see Russia bleed and suffer for a very long time. Supporting Ukraine with arms seems a price well worth paying if it neuters a proven aggressive, empire seeking Russia. Putin is 68 and won't be in power for ever. If the Russians were prepared to leave Afghanistan they may be prepared to leave Ukraine after years of fruitless suffering and crippling sanctions...with a new leader.
I think the statement that Russia is unlikely to run out of personnel is at least debatable, if not pretty clearly wrong.
They are resorting to ever more desperate measures to raise volunteers, including paying enormous amounts of money (relatively speaking) for people as old as (or even older than) 50 to sign up for 4-6 month contracts. They are recruiting from prisons. They are press ganging every male they can in occupied Ukraine.
This seems unsustainable. Even supposing that current measures get them meaningful number of recruits, they will be the worst kinds of cannon fodder. Russian sources complain about not having enough infantry - well, infantry isn't just a bunch of random middle-aged guys who have nothing else to live for than the bottom of a bottle of vodka. The kind of infantry Russia needs is that which is highly trained in combined arms tactics - how to work with tanks to take ground, for instance.
I agree that what we're seeing is a war of attrition - and that, so long as both sides keep fighting, a war of attrition lasts until a critical resource on one side is exhausted. Well, it appears the most obvious critical resource being reduced to unacceptable levels is Russian personnel. If Russia gets to the point where it's no longer able to staff one or more of its fronts, then Ukraine will start rolling back Russia in whatever geography that is. And Russia starts to clearly lose in Ukraine, that will likely have very material domestic and international ramifications.
And it's clear that Putin is desperate not to declare this as an out-and-out war, presumably because doing so would make him look very bad domestically. So, yeah, Putin could declare war, but if that were an easy option, he'd already have taken it.
I don't think support in the West will drop, because we cannot condone the cruelty Russia has demonstrated in the captured areas of Ukraine; the comparison with Nazi cruelty during WW2 will become more apparent. That alone will harden Western views, and make us accept any cost.
From a commercial point of view Russia has made a strategic mistake in stopping the sale of resources (gas etc), when it feels necessary. This will damage its relations with those who may be its current clients, say China, Kazhakstan, Krygystan, Turkey and others. They will be wary of relying on Russian products (and will expect significant price discounts), and so in the medium term, two to four years, Russia will feel the full force of this error.
Bleeding Russia requires bleeding Ukraine, too. Current frontline divides regions that are rapidly being depleted of citizens that belong to the other side, by language, political orientation. War in Eastern Ukraine is being fought in regions where majority speaks Russian as mother tongue, at least half consider themselves Russian. Tragic fate, harrassed in Ukraine, mobilized in Russia, regarded and used as subhumans by the US & West. When there are no more Ukrainians on the other side of the frontline, like there are none in Crimea, continuing war will become too difficult even for zealots.
"The debates in the West on whether support for Ukraine will drain away as the economic pain intensifies and ‘war fatigue’ steps in have acquired a routine quality but all one can say is that so far this has not happened"
The projected energy prices in Europe this winter would suggest much more econmic pain is coming. Perhaps Moscow is confident this will be the decisive strategic factor?
My own thinking on this: the key allies for the Ukraine are the US and Poland. Even if Germany and France did "cave in to Moscow", do they have the leverage to force Ukraine to stop fighting? I would argue no. As long as the USA is happy to provide weapons, and Poland is happy to accomodate the logistics bases need to support this, Ukraine can continue to fight.
I often read that a long war of attrition will favour Russia. I'm not so sure. The Ukrainians aren't going anywhere and Russia looks like it will never capture Kiev. I'm inclined to think the Europeans and America will be happy to see Russia bleed and suffer for a very long time. Supporting Ukraine with arms seems a price well worth paying if it neuters a proven aggressive, empire seeking Russia. Putin is 68 and won't be in power for ever. If the Russians were prepared to leave Afghanistan they may be prepared to leave Ukraine after years of fruitless suffering and crippling sanctions...with a new leader.
I think the statement that Russia is unlikely to run out of personnel is at least debatable, if not pretty clearly wrong.
They are resorting to ever more desperate measures to raise volunteers, including paying enormous amounts of money (relatively speaking) for people as old as (or even older than) 50 to sign up for 4-6 month contracts. They are recruiting from prisons. They are press ganging every male they can in occupied Ukraine.
This seems unsustainable. Even supposing that current measures get them meaningful number of recruits, they will be the worst kinds of cannon fodder. Russian sources complain about not having enough infantry - well, infantry isn't just a bunch of random middle-aged guys who have nothing else to live for than the bottom of a bottle of vodka. The kind of infantry Russia needs is that which is highly trained in combined arms tactics - how to work with tanks to take ground, for instance.
I agree that what we're seeing is a war of attrition - and that, so long as both sides keep fighting, a war of attrition lasts until a critical resource on one side is exhausted. Well, it appears the most obvious critical resource being reduced to unacceptable levels is Russian personnel. If Russia gets to the point where it's no longer able to staff one or more of its fronts, then Ukraine will start rolling back Russia in whatever geography that is. And Russia starts to clearly lose in Ukraine, that will likely have very material domestic and international ramifications.
And it's clear that Putin is desperate not to declare this as an out-and-out war, presumably because doing so would make him look very bad domestically. So, yeah, Putin could declare war, but if that were an easy option, he'd already have taken it.
I don't think support in the West will drop, because we cannot condone the cruelty Russia has demonstrated in the captured areas of Ukraine; the comparison with Nazi cruelty during WW2 will become more apparent. That alone will harden Western views, and make us accept any cost.
From a commercial point of view Russia has made a strategic mistake in stopping the sale of resources (gas etc), when it feels necessary. This will damage its relations with those who may be its current clients, say China, Kazhakstan, Krygystan, Turkey and others. They will be wary of relying on Russian products (and will expect significant price discounts), and so in the medium term, two to four years, Russia will feel the full force of this error.
Bleeding Russia requires bleeding Ukraine, too. Current frontline divides regions that are rapidly being depleted of citizens that belong to the other side, by language, political orientation. War in Eastern Ukraine is being fought in regions where majority speaks Russian as mother tongue, at least half consider themselves Russian. Tragic fate, harrassed in Ukraine, mobilized in Russia, regarded and used as subhumans by the US & West. When there are no more Ukrainians on the other side of the frontline, like there are none in Crimea, continuing war will become too difficult even for zealots.
Typo: the caption of the cover photo, "Crime" should be "Crimea."