The Russians and Ukrainians Are Preparing for a Long-Term War.
All wars end one day. But wars that end too soon, without waiting for a military victory, or those whose terms are too unfair to one side, rarely lead to peace.
In Western Europe, more and more voices are being raised to call for an end to the war in Ukraine. The latest initiative is a peace plan presented by Italy, which a Ukrainian diplomat describes as “a pale copy of the Minsk agreements”. From Rome to Berlin via Paris, the objective is now to create the conditions for a cease-fire and the opening of negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv.
However, on the ground, the war seems, on the contrary, to last. On the Russian side, first of all. In December 1994, when they launched the first invasion of Chechnya, Russian officials thought they could quell the rebellion in 48 hours with a battalion of paratroopers. It took them several years and two wars to overcome. The attack launched on February 24 was also supposed to decapitate the Kyiv government in a few days. Three months later, the capital is still in the hands of the Ukrainians who drove the Russians out. And in the Donbas, the fighting goes on and on.
Vladimir Putin needs a glorious victory more than ever
Despite the victory in Mariupol, the first military trophy won by the Kremlin since the beginning of the war, no sign of appeasement has yet come from Moscow. With 95% of the city of Mariupol destroyed, this Russian victory looks more like a Pyrrhic victory.
If we are to believe the Ukrainian Minister of Defense, the war with Russia has even entered a “prolonged phase”. Oleksii Reznikov claims that Russian troops have fortified their positions in the territories they occupy, around Zaporizhia and Kherson, to “switch to defensive mode if necessary”. The Kremlin's objective, according to him, is still “the creation of a land corridor linking Russia to Crimea” and the occupation of “the entire south of Ukraine”. The United States is also betting on a long war. Avril Haines, the head of U.S. intelligence, believes that Vladimir Putin will probably not be satisfied with a victory in the east and the Donbas, because he has not, in her opinion, given up his more ambitious goals for Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin has many reasons for not wanting to end the war.
Apart from Mariupol, he has not reached any of his targets. The destruction of the flagship Moskva, sunk in the middle of the sea by the Ukrainians, the enormous human and material losses, the setback in Kyiv, and the difficulties in the Donbas have dented the image of the Russian army. With the heavy toll already paid to the war, and the strategic collateral damage caused by his decision - the announced entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO, the long-term break with the West, the impoverishment of the country - Vladimir Putin needs a glorious victory more than ever.
Much more glorious in any case than the smoking ruins of Mariupol.
As seen from Moscow, a war of attrition could even have advantages. It would give the Kremlin time to renew its military forces and train recruits. Vladimir Putin can count on the resilience of the Russian population, which since the communist period has seen more than its fair share. He can also count on the support of China, never questioned since the beginning of the war, on the understanding of Donald Trump if he returns to power in 2024, and on the probable erosion of Western support for Ukraine if the war drags on. “Vladimir Putin loves frozen conflicts. And he has always known how to drag out wars,” as several European diplomats like to remind us.
The Ukrainians also have every reason not to end the war and to refuse a cease-fire on Russian terms, which they consider both premature and inappropriate.
The Ukrainian army pushed back the Russians in Kyiv, it resisted heroically in Mariupol and it proved on all other fronts the valor and professionalism of its army as well as the will and morale of its soldiers. Engaged in a patriotic war, to defend the sovereignty of their country but also the values of democracy, Ukrainians believe that they can win the war and defeat Russian imperialism for good. Especially since the West has increased the pace and quality of its arms deliveries.
A long-lasting war that will only result in losers
Galvanized by Western support and by the evolution of the balance of power on the ground, which at the beginning of the war was unfavorable to them, the Ukrainians reject the concessions demanded by Moscow since the beginning of the war. These concessions amount to a capitulation since Kyiv should at least give up to Russia all the territories occupied since February 24, 2022, and accept the demilitarization of the country.
If he were to rush into this unjust peace, Zelensky would risk calling into question the independence of his country and finding himself at odds with the population and the nationalist wing of the government. The war crimes and atrocities committed by Russian forces in Butcha and the towns they occupied have also dampened the negotiators' spirits. The Ukrainians still need victories on the ground to force Moscow into an agreement that sufficiently respects the territorial integrity of their country and its security needs.
All wars end one day. But wars that end too soon, without waiting for a military victory, or those whose terms are too unfair to one side, rarely lead to peace. Too favorable to the Russians, the Minsk agreements, signed in 2014, never brought peace to the Donbas. The Dayton Accords, which froze the unfinished fronts of the Bosnian War in 1995, did not stabilize the region. But a long war, besides not guaranteeing victory for either side, will be painful. “It is likely that there will be only losers. I see neither Russia nor Ukraine emerging victorious from this disaster”, analyses another European diplomat.
A long war would also have consequences on the European continent. It would prolong border insecurity, fuel the migration crisis and threaten to lead to a global food crisis. Not to mention the economic consequences and the increase in oil and gas prices. But when it comes to the war in Ukraine, Europeans are not the masters of the clock.
Some reading
Is Vladimir Putin's Russia behind the adoption of Bitcoin as a legal tender in Central Africa? In other words: can Bitcoin really benefit the people of the Central African Republic?