The Kremlin appeared to be hoping to overthrow Ukraine’s government and impose a more compliant one when it launched its full-scale invasion in February. It was calculated incorrectly. Russia’s poor planning was matched by Ukraine’s tenacity. After being driven out of the area around Kiev in the spring, Moscow concentrated its forces in the east and south. Later, in the late summer, Ukrainian forces advanced there as well, armed with stronger Western weapons.
Moscow, on the other hand, has raised the stakes. Although data is sketchy, it is possible that 300,000 more men were mobilised. At least as many Russians have left the country, and the army continues to face personnel and equipment shortages. Furthermore, the Kremlin declared the annexation of Ukrainian territory, including areas over which it has no control. It began a punishing campaign of airstrikes against Ukraine’s infrastructure. As a result of the power outages, many areas have become almost uninhabitable. Up to one in every three Ukrainians has been displaced in the last year.
So far, little has indicated that Moscow or Kiev will back down. Every new assault and admission of Russian abuses (such as summary executions and sexual abuse) is seen as justification for the conflict to continue. Opposition in Russia is discouraged by oppression and propaganda. Neither side appears to be eager for peace talks. It stands to reason that Ukrainians would be hesitant to cede land they had successfully reclaimed. Despite claiming to be open to diplomacy, Moscow continues to put pressure on Kyiv, mocking the Ukrainian government as Nazis ruled by the barbaric West. Putin appears to be blowing up his own off-ramps by escalating his behaviour in response to each setback.
Stasis has taken hold, but how long it will last is unknown. Both sides are firmly entrenched and seeking a way forward. Despite the hype, a new Belarusian attack on central Ukraine appears unlikely given its slim chances of success. Moscow hopes that the harsh winter weather and high gas prices caused by Western boycotts of Russian hydrocarbons will persuade Europeans to reconsider their support for Ukraine. However, there aren’t many cracks in Western unity so far. Many European capitals believe that Ukraine’s defeat will embolden Moscow and put them in danger. Despite complaints from the Republican Party’s right flank, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Washington at the end of 2022 confirmed Washington’s bipartisan support.
Both Moscow and Western capitals have worked hard to avoid direct confrontations in the truly catastrophic scenario of a nuclear escalation between NATO and Russia. For example, the West has rejected the concept of no-fly zones and has refused to provide some cutting-edge weapons. Russia has avoided attacking NATO territory. Putin has frequently mentioned Russia’s nuclear arsenal, ostensibly to frighten the West, but he has recently toned down his remarks. A nuclear attack would be ineffective militarily and could lead to the NATO involvement Moscow is attempting to avoid. However, it is impossible to rule out the possibility, especially if Putin believes his grip on power is slipping. In fact, the war has most likely raised the risk of nuclear war to its highest level in 60 years. Furthermore, regardless of what happens in Ukraine, it prepares Europe for a protracted standoff.
Without a doubt, Western leaders should keep the door open to a settlement by outlining to the Kremlin the benefits of a deal that Ukraine can live with, particularly in terms of sanctions relief. However, they believe that, for the time being, despite the horrors of the war, supporting Ukraine is preferable to allowing Russia to win through a brutal military campaign and nuclear threat. Other parts of the world are concerned about such a difficult calculation. However, it is the correct choice up to this point.
