As far as Russia is concerned, Zaporizhzhia is Russian territory and there is no chance of Ukraine actually recapturing it. Anybody who thinks that Russia would cause a major nuclear disaster on their own territory is beyond reason.
Ok, so let’s say both sides think it’s their territory, so neither will want to cause a nuclear disaster there. That seems like a good balance for everyone else on this planet, for the time being.
there is no chance of Ukraine actually recapturing it
Ok, so let’s say both sides think it’s their territory, so neither will want to cause a nuclear disaster there. That seems like a good balance for everyone else on this planet, for the time being.
The difference is that Ukraine is now entirely reliant on the west to continue fighting. This creates incentives for Ukraine to continuously seek escalation that could potentially get NATO directly involved in the conflict. Incidentally, US senators already introduced a resolution calling for NATO involvement in case of such an incident
Because that’s obvious to anybody who’s been paying any attention to what’s been going on for the past two years. This ultimately comes down to manpower and logistics. Ukraine has far less people than Russia, and the west lacks the industrial base to continue supplying Ukraine at the current levels. This is well documented in western media by the way.
This was also understood long before the war started. Here’s what Obama had to say back in 2016:
The reality of the situation is that the west gave Ukraine everything they could for this offensive, and it will not be possible to replace that in the near future. The offensive was supposed to make a decisive breakthrough in the first 24 hours. In fact, this was critical for any sort of success https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/18/ukraine-russia-war-counteroffensive-attack-bakhmut-himars/
It’s now been a month, and Ukraine has failed to reach even the first line of Russia defences while suffering horrific losses.
The most likely outcome here is that Ukraine will burn through their men and equipment, and once the offensive fizzles it’s likely that Russia will go on the offensive of their own against a demoralized and depleted Ukrainian army.
John Mearsheimer has a pretty sober analysis of what can be expected to happen realistically that I highly encourage you to read
Ukraine currently is claiming that a victory would mean that Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk are all liberated. But is that actually required? They’re fighting an existential war, where a complete loss would be that Ukraine stops existing as a separate entity, or at least as an independent entity.
So perhaps a peace agreement where they lose significant amounts of territory would be still be a “victory” for them. It certainly was for Finland in 1944. You can compare what happened in Estonia before their independence from Soviet Union to see how that is true.
Also, Vietnam. War of attrition there was able to completely counter USA, a much more powerful military power. Although admittedly not a regional military power.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war because now that Russia has committed itself to military action they’re not going to settle for the status quo. Best case scenario for Ukraine at this point is that there’s going to be a rump state left in western Ukraine where nationalist sentiment is the strongest. Meanwhile, Vietnam is actually a good analogy, but with US deciding to drop support for western Ukraine once they realize the war is not winnable.
As far as Russia is concerned, Zaporizhzhia is Russian territory and there is no chance of Ukraine actually recapturing it. Anybody who thinks that Russia would cause a major nuclear disaster on their own territory is beyond reason.
Ok, so let’s say both sides think it’s their territory, so neither will want to cause a nuclear disaster there. That seems like a good balance for everyone else on this planet, for the time being.
Why is that?
The difference is that Ukraine is now entirely reliant on the west to continue fighting. This creates incentives for Ukraine to continuously seek escalation that could potentially get NATO directly involved in the conflict. Incidentally, US senators already introduced a resolution calling for NATO involvement in case of such an incident
https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/6/graham-blumenthal-introduce-resolution-to-address-threat-of-russian-tactical-nukes
Because that’s obvious to anybody who’s been paying any attention to what’s been going on for the past two years. This ultimately comes down to manpower and logistics. Ukraine has far less people than Russia, and the west lacks the industrial base to continue supplying Ukraine at the current levels. This is well documented in western media by the way.
This was also understood long before the war started. Here’s what Obama had to say back in 2016:
The reality of the situation is that the west gave Ukraine everything they could for this offensive, and it will not be possible to replace that in the near future. The offensive was supposed to make a decisive breakthrough in the first 24 hours. In fact, this was critical for any sort of success https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/18/ukraine-russia-war-counteroffensive-attack-bakhmut-himars/
It’s now been a month, and Ukraine has failed to reach even the first line of Russia defences while suffering horrific losses.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/06/27/25-tanks-and-fighting-vehicles-gone-in-a-blink-the-ukrainian-defeat-near-mala-tokmachka-was-worst-than-we-thought/
The offensive is going so poorly that even CNN calls it disappointing
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/ukraine-counteroffensive-western-assessment/index.html
The most likely outcome here is that Ukraine will burn through their men and equipment, and once the offensive fizzles it’s likely that Russia will go on the offensive of their own against a demoralized and depleted Ukrainian army.
John Mearsheimer has a pretty sober analysis of what can be expected to happen realistically that I highly encourage you to read
https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/the-darkness-ahead-where-the-ukraine
Ukraine currently is claiming that a victory would mean that Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk are all liberated. But is that actually required? They’re fighting an existential war, where a complete loss would be that Ukraine stops existing as a separate entity, or at least as an independent entity.
So perhaps a peace agreement where they lose significant amounts of territory would be still be a “victory” for them. It certainly was for Finland in 1944. You can compare what happened in Estonia before their independence from Soviet Union to see how that is true.
Also, Vietnam. War of attrition there was able to completely counter USA, a much more powerful military power. Although admittedly not a regional military power.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war because now that Russia has committed itself to military action they’re not going to settle for the status quo. Best case scenario for Ukraine at this point is that there’s going to be a rump state left in western Ukraine where nationalist sentiment is the strongest. Meanwhile, Vietnam is actually a good analogy, but with US deciding to drop support for western Ukraine once they realize the war is not winnable.