GUEST BLOG: Ben Morgan – The war in Ukraine turned 1…Where does it end?
This week the action in Ukraine was not on the battlefield. Instead, it was in the political arena and the most important activity related China. The United Nations passed another resolution condemning the war, a resolution supported by the vast majority of nations. Only Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, Russia and Syria voting against the resolution. However, a significant number abstained, 32. And; the abstentions tell an interesting tale of the ‘Global South’, nations of the Southern Hemisphere, disengaged and not wanting to be involved in the war.
However, they are a group of countries that account for approximately half the world’s population, this vote clearly demonstrating a schism between the progressive liberal democracies and other nations. For example, last week’s announcement of South African naval exercises with China and Russia seemed to be a snub to the countries supporting Ukraine. So an important lesson from this week is the need to close this gap because if it is not closed then we risk wars not only with outlier states but between wider regional, social or economic blocks.
After considerable Sino-American tension in recent weeks China was on the offensive diplomatically responding to United States claims that they were planning to supply Russia with lethal military aid, by presenting a peace plan. A plan that lacks detail and was met sceptically in Europe, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg saying “China doesn’t have much credibility because they have not been able to condemn the illegal invasion of Ukraine” a statement that sums up NATO sentiment.
However, even if the plan was short on detail Ukraine was open to discussion. President Zelenskyy saying that Kyiv and China need to work together to try and end the war, stating that “China started talking about Ukraine, and that’s not bad” and that “our task is to unite everyone in order to isolate one”. China’s intervention is interesting and produces a range of possibilities because although China’s position is uncertain the proposal may provide an opportunity to open peaceful discussions.
Hein Goemans, Rochester University professor and director of the Peter D. Watson Centre for Conflict and Cooperation speaking on CNN, recently provided excellent insight into possible next steps in Ukraine pointing out that a key first part of any war, is finding out information that can only be discovered in combat. Like, the relative strength of your military versus the enemy’s military. After all a year ago our perception of Russian military power was very different; and it is only after that period of ‘discovery’ that negotiation becomes likely.
Unfortunately, Goemans points out that there is limited opportunity for peace because Russia’s ability to make a credible deal is limited. Could Ukraine sensibly accept a Russian deal? Even a complete withdrawal to 2014 borders? If a deal could be brokered Ukraine would need security guarantees and the problem is that the only agency that could credibly provide those guarantees is NATO. And; therein is the first conundrum. Putin can’t be trusted; and the only way to enforce a deal would be Ukraine becoming part of NATO (or receiving a level of security protection that would be membership in all but name). Something Putin could never accept.
The second conundrum is that Putin cannot afford to lose. If he does, he will be punished at home most likely being killed. This means that he is incentivised to keep fighting; Goeman’s term is ‘gambling for resurrection’ because as long as he is fighting, he still has a chance. Perhaps, that is why we see Russia’s war effort morphing from a large and aggressive campaign into something more sustainable. It is also probably why Ukraine is currently reporting that they think Russia will conduct false flag operations to bring Belarus into the war. Evidence that Putin is desperately looking for options.
China’s peace deal may be an option because although, China’s peace initiative is often presented in a negative way by mainstream media, it is very important that we remember that both China and India are playing a vital role in this conflict. Both nations denunciation of nuclear weapons is contributing to not only stopping World War Three; but also to limiting Putin’s options for escalation. While China and India are publicly opposed to using nuclear weapons Putin is strongly disincentivised from using them. He needs them to buy his oil and support him internationally, so while both nations are demonstrably against the use of nuclear weapons the chances of him using them are minimal.
The situation is complex though; and this week’s battlefield lull is a good point for reflection. Goeman’s analysis captures the key issues with a negotiated peace settlement and seems to indicate that this is highly unlikely in the current situation. Putin, can’t be trusted and is unlikely to settle for any deal that can’t be claimed as a victory. So where to from here?
This week has reinforced the need for NATO and Ukraine’s other allies to accept the real politick of Putin’s Russia. The only possible way to secure Ukrainian sovereignty is to physically drive Russian troops out of Ukraine. Statesman, Henry Kissinger and others have throughout the war interpreted the real politick to be that Ukraine and NATO must accept Russia’s aggression and that a peace must be brokered even if it involves Ukraine surrendering its claim to Crimea, Donetsk or Luhansk. That for the sake of the international order it is better to let Putin have his victory and preserve a strong Russia within the European community.
Unfortunately, this plan seems to be less and less sensible now, subverted by the fact that Putin cannot be trusted. Any deal now would simply push the issue of Ukrainian sovereignty further down the road, a peace deal without total defeat allowing Putin to rebuild rearm and prepare for the next fight. For instance, looking back and considering the nuclear question, my analysis was that the best time for Putin to use a tactical nuclear weapon was at the start of the invasion. A sudden severe escalation, one year ago may have scared NATO away from supporting Ukraine. Cutting a peace deal and allowing Putin to reset, might see the world facing him after drawing the same conclusion ready for his next ‘special military operation’.
Strategically therefore, defeating Russia and driving their forces out of Ukraine as quickly as possible needs to be the only goal. It is vital, that support for Ukraine increases and that NATO and other allies provide war winning material as quickly as possible. Activity this week suggests that others may have drawn the same conclusions, NATO and the United States announcing large packages of support and extensions of sanctions to further cripple Russia’s economy.
The relationship between more NATO support being delivered and China’s intervention as a possible ‘peace negotiator’ should not be overlooked. The quicker and more soundly Russia starts to be pushed out, the more pressure there is on Putin to work with a Chinese brokered solution simply to avoid losing completely. Further, if China is competing with the United States; it needs allies so will not want Russia’s military to be completely destroyed so self-interest will dictate that they pressure Putin to negotiate. Therefore, it makes sense to listen to; and engage with, the Chinese process as Zelenskyy appears to be doing. China has more to gain from a peaceful resolution; saving an ally from defeat or perhaps establishing itself as a peacemaker and leader amongst the Global South. So there is a possibility that caught between Ukraine winning and China’s self interest a robust peace deal could arise, one that provides security for Ukraine.
Further, this week there seems to be a growing awareness and acceptance amongst commentators that the Russian offensive is culminating and that Ukraine is getting ready to move. Ukraine even made statements this week about their plans for offensive operations this year. This column has argued for some time that Ukraine holds the initiative and that the next big move in the campaign will be their offensive; and it is interesting that others are starting to reach the same conclusion. The key questions now are when and where.
In summary, this week has been all about the big picture. On Ukraine’s battlefields there is little movement and the real action is far away in back rooms and at conferences; as generals plan and diplomats talk.
Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer and TDBs military blogger
Desperation Ben.
Ben,
Do you seriously believe the West should back Ukraine to drive Russia out of Crimea? Because I am pretty sure that won’t happen, and neither do most NATO nations even think that is sensible.
While you may be critical of Kissinger, I think he has a better grasp of geo-politics than you do.And thus where an ultimate peace may arise. The fact that Zelensky is prepared to listen to China would indicates he also knows where Ukraine’s limits lie.
Thank you Wayne, Z now has to rescue what he can from the whole disaster.
“Do you seriously believe the West should back Ukraine to drive Russia out of Crimea?” Wayne
Yep.
Crimea is an isolated peninsula with two routes in and out. For much the same reasons that Russia was able to take Crimea so easily in the first place, a campaign to retake Crimea makes perfect sense.
If the West finally agree to provide Ukraine with the long range precision weapons the Ukrainians have been asking for..,
…If Ukraine can use these precision weapons to keep the main highway and railway into the peninsula inoperable.
….If the Kerch Bridge can be blown up beyond repair.
The war will pretty much be over.
I too must dissent with Ben over Crimea. When Crimea was Ukrainian, Russia still had a presence there with the lease of the naval base at Sevastopol. Crimea is a bridge too far. As for the Donbas, does Ukraine really want the crime ridden, infested cesspits of Donetsk and Luhansk back? The separatists – most of who are Russian imports are impossible to negotiate anyway. A return to pre-2014 is more sensible.
Ben, thanks for the commentary – yes, I think you’re fundamentally correct. In essence we cannot live in a world where Putin gets any sort of victory so he has to be beaten on the battlefield and then his own people can take on a one-way trip into the woods. Of the nations that are non-aligned:
> South Africa doesn’t really count for much these days because it’s on the verge of collapse. Sadly, its future is Zimbabwe II.
>India is invested in its relationship with Russia because most of its fast jets are Russian in origin – Su30’s. So, it needs to keep sweet with Russia in order to maintain the supply of spare parts. Also, doing a deal to get oil on the cheap is very Indian LOL.
>I think China is just trying to remind everyone it’s still a player in international affairs. Weighed down by internal financial and social problems, I don’t think China is in a position to exert significant leverage. If it decides to support Putin, Europe and America China can just impose a small import duty that would be a catastrophe for China’s economy.
Andrew, the USA and West are in deep economic trouble. This proxy war is all about breaking the bonds of the US$ as the worlds reserve currency. It acts as a tax on all the emerging economies and they have signaled that they arent going to pay any longer. Russia v Ukraine may stop tomorrow, dedollarisation is now ongoing. China is the big winner to date, although at some point they will have to face the fact that their main export market, the US is both hostile and bankrupt. Biggest losers, Europe, exposed as US satrapies now without cheap Russian energy that goes elsewhere, no other options on table.
Hmm, it is not really an economic problem for the US. Which is why their economy is going well. High employment. declining inflation.
Even if all $100 billion US weapons are delivered to Ukraine, which will take most of 2023 and beyond, that is only 12% of the US defence budget. About 0.5% of GDP. In short in the big scheme of things, no big deal. The US has over $25 trillion in Federal debt, about the same size as the US GDP. Most of which is 30 year bonds at very low interest rates. One hundred billion (the cost of Ukrainian support) is 0.3% of the debt.
It is no risk to the role of the US dollar as a reserve currency. Simply too small a figure to matter.
For an analogy, if you had a 1 million dollar mortgage, it would be as if you added another $3,000 to the mortgage. And that additional $3,000 had an interest rate of 3%. Ninety extra dollars on your annual expenditure.
Wayne, I totally agree money spent on war in the Ukraine doesn’t matter to the US government. That is the whole point, they merely extend debt to themselves.
Your analogy works until such time as you miss a payment to the bank. At that point your credit worthiness gets scrutinised, as does your ability to generate income.
Assigning ever increasing debt to yourself without addressing the generation of income is a certain way to go broke. China has massive debt but it also has growing industrial output. The US used to be the world’s industrial powerhouse, offshoring has demolished that. To pay interest on Treasuries the US needs to “clip the ticket” by being the world reserve currency. That is under threat hence the doubling down in Ukraine and sabre rattling against China.
Wishful thinking again Nick J. You’re not winning any prizes for prophecy.
Hi PhuD, keep dreaming. PS Bahkmut surrounded.
Anyone follow Peter Zeihan’s updates on youtube? I like him. He has an answer to the where and when that Ben asks:
1. Ground is too soggy bc mild winter. So unless a surprise severe cold snap, there will be no big moves until Spring dry out in May (but Climate Chaos uncertainty).
2. By May Russians will have 700 000ish warm bodies in the field to zorg rush Ukrainian forces who are killing off russian soldiers 1:3 ratio. They will need to boost this to 1:10 kill ratio minimum which is highly unlikely.
3. Ukranian forces need to use mobility advantage to concentrate fire power and break through advancing zorg rush in places where they can cut off and attack russian forces from behind. Could work but high risk.
4. This war is still Russia’s to lose. Its an existential war – Russia is done if loses, if wins any Ukrainian still in the country will be exterminated.
Its going to be a BLOOD BATH.
Russian doesn’t have 700,000 in the Army. Certainly not in Ukraine.
Prior to the war, the Russian Army (not the Navy or Airforce) had about 400,000 active personnel. Putin has had his 300,000 recruitment drive, so in theory the totality of the Army would be 700,000, but of course nearly 200,000 have been killed, wounded or captured. So an active Army of 500,000, assuming all 300,000 have been recruited. At best, 75% will be in Ukraine, so more like 400,000 soldiers in Ukraine. The total recruitment might actually be closer to 500,000, so perhaps 500,000 Russian soldiers in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian Army is actually larger. More like 1 million and all are focused on Ukrainian defence. To put the 1 million in perspective, that is about 2.2% of the Ukrainian population. In contrast in WW1, New Zealand had 3% of the population serving in France. Countries facing existential threats can mobilise up to 10% of the population. So Ukraine can mobilise even more than they currently have, especially as their training capacity builds up. It is an existential war for Ukraine, but not for Russia. Russia can go for a”fig leaf” victory and withdraw if it wants. Ukraine can’t.
Russia can’t recruit in the way that Ukraine has done. The proposed size of the Russian armed forces is 1.5 million or about 1.1% of the population. It would mean an Army of 800,000. I guess it would be credible for Russia to go to 2% of the population, so armed forces of 2.6 million, of which 2 million would be the Army. However, bear in mind that 1 million young Russians, mostly military aged men, have left the country. They are not keen to be part of the proposed 2 million man army. In fact their departure makes it hard for Russia to actually get a 2 million man army.
The short point is that on the Ukrainian front, the two sides will have similar sized forces for the foreseeable future, with the balance in numbers actually favouring Ukraine. The army that mounts a major offensive is likely to suffer heavy casualties, greater than the defenders. The only reason why this would not be the case is if the army on the offensive has substantially superior weapons. The odds do not favour Russia, especially as Ukraine starts to get substantially more advanced western artillery and advanced western tanks.
Well said Wayne!
What is your source for your stats? YOu are arguing Ukraine has bigger army and better equipment? Why is Russia still there then? Why is so much of Ukraine destroyed?
Do you have a Ukrainian background?
Correction moon. Russia is not done if it loses. Putin will lose his head, the siloviki in power could well lose their grip. A good outcome all round.
Correction Gadfly, Russia can not defend all that open tundra without sealing off the entrance points. Failure to do so leaves it wide open to future incursions as it always has suffered.
The main threat will come from China. In Europe though Kaliningrad should be demilitarised and its name changed back to Königsberg instead of being named after a bloody Bolshevik.
Why do every time i read Ben’s articles i feel Gaslit ? Just a gentle reminder it was the West that broke most agreements and no longer has credibility. Russia has no need for peace because they understand the hypocrisy of the West, mind you its with the utmost hilarity i read “cutting a peace deal will allow Putin to reset” conveniently ignoring how the West Used the Maidan peace deal to do exactly that. Fool me once shame on me, Fool me twice shame on you.
At least you get your comments shown.
Most of mine disappear
And there you go again.
When you can’t make any argument in defence of your position. Claim censorship, of comments, that you never made.
You are such a liar.
I seem to have that problem too Francesca.
D J S
Continuous issue for me as well.
Ditto
The pro-war trolls are all claiming that their comments are being censored.
They are just claiming their arguments in support of Russian aggression are being censored to play the victim card.
A true Marxist you are Pat. Free speech no, censorship yes. And label everyone liars.
The pro-war trolls claim they are being censored by the Daily Blog but comment here freely.
Further proof that you are liars.
The pro war trolls are on the US Nato side of the debate Ben. They armed and trained the neonazi element in the Ukraine military to attack the people of the Donbas killing about 14000 in defiance of the Minsk agreement and were about to mount a massive attack on the remaining area of that region hejd by the local inhabitants when Russia responded to their neighbour’e request for assistance. If the Nato countries had kept out of it it would have been over in a week or two and the suffering would have been minute compared to what has eventuated with US pumping enormous amounts of arms into the Kiev regime to keep the war going and to escalate it.The result is simply going to be many times the loss of life of Russians and more so Ukrainians to no effect except that Ukraine will now lose two more oblasts than they would have without the intervention.
The last thing we want is war, probably that applies to all of us actually , But avoiding it needs an honest appraisal of why it is happening.
D J S
The US had given up on Ukraine, evacuated their embassy in Kiev and left the country, abandoning the Ukrainian people to their fate.
On their way out of the country the Yanks offered Zelensky a ride.
And then everything changed. The Ukrainian people fought back and refused to be subjugated. The Russian armored column was ambushed on the main road into Kiev and destroyed by inventive hit and run tactics.. Zelensky famously told the Yanks. “I don’t need a ride, I need ammunition.”
Your account of the Donbas is very one sided DJS. The separatists who control Luhansk and Donetsk are criminals imported from Russia. They still have three OSCE monitors in prison. They shot down MH17.
There have been faults on both sides with Ukraine’s language policies being a major cause of friction.
There is no escaping the fact that the separatists in Donbas are a pack of criminals.
Why did they shoot down MH17?
Quite Pat. Mind you I have made some comments about Putin that have also been censored. Even though they are in the public domain!
Really Finngrin? I must remind you of the Budapest Memorandum 1994 when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees. By coincidence I was in Russia at the time and I think the treaty was overshadowed by Russia moving against Chechnya. However Russia has broken the memorandum big time so you have a very selective memory when it comes to this conflict.
You don’t have the moral right to claim “Security guarantees” when Ukraine has openly broken the Maidan agreements with the continuous shelling of civilians in the Donbass IMO.
What is this muddled point you are trying to make Finngrin? What Maidan agreements? The GRU and the FSB played a large part in the deaths of the protestors during Maidan. There was massive pressure on Yanukovych from Russia. Russia was interfering with the Ukrainian government causing carnage and the Ukrainian people refused to accept it – they’d had enough. Then Russian thugs, GRU, FSB, Spetsnaz, Vagner Group infiltrated into Donbas and Crimea. Donetsk had been a haven for mafia criminals before this anyway.
What’s more, if the governments of Donetsk and Luhansk were so innocent, why are they still holding three OSCE monitors in jail? The separatists in control of the Donbas are lawless thugs.
It will definitely end if China gets involved (on Russia’s side), since no country is really equipped to sanction China to any appreciable extent (let alone engage militarily). China’s capacity to make bombs, ammunition and general military hardware is unlimited and Russia will pay for it with their unlimited energy. As it stands now China seems to be threatening the West with direct involvement in Ukraine if they won’t make peace.
https://apnews.com/article/peace-talks-russia-ukraine-china-b6ce7e237f6f9037ad317a69d2f1373a
Russia can also provide a direct overland route to Europe for Chinese goods, and soon a sea passage around Northern Russia will be an option too. China must also be aware that its weapons could benefit from being tested under combat conditions…
I’ll say it again, the west is foolish to make enemies of Russia AND China just to appease the cold war mentality of choose your foe and don’t stop until you grind him into the dust. Compromise and make peace is the only long term solution.
Putin can’t be trusted? The root cause of this war is that Russia knows the west in general and the US in particular can’t be trusted – Gorbachev was the last Russian leader to make that mistake.
‘progressive,liberal….democracies’…….very..good.
Russia is winning. In classic Big Lie style, it is only Russia grinding young and old Ukrainians to death, sent at the behest of the global civilised West.
But it is crucial that the West and their men like Ben, maintain their narrative that Russia is losing. Because they know they can not beat Russia and dismember it like they wish. But if they keep up the pretence, then they can pretend that it is ONLY some drastic Russian action that has seen Ukraine defeated. And the “new determination” they create out of that is their consolation prize. Keeping stupid countries like NZ and the corrupt & fearful of the global south behind the new iron stars and stripes curtain. As hegemony collapses, that’s their fall back position.
How does this happen?
Well, Russia has determined all its own criteria for a nuclear response. Only they know what a suitable target or the final redline would be, but knowledgeable analysts say the window for the West to negotiate is 60-90 days.
A bona fide Russian nuclear strike could be the excuse the US await for demanding fealty for their new globalist iron market democracy – with all the digital, CBDC, AI plans and 15 minute cities rolled into the bundle.
Another option is a false flag strike to be outraged about – either nuclear or the long promised cyber attack. The latter of course being a clear problem to be “solved” by all the digital ID solutions the globalists have prepared.
So we’re at that same stage as at the last US presidential election where all the real experts, all the historical evidence said there was almost no way Trump could lose, experts were befuddled to see Biden come out and say “I got a good feeling. Hang in there” He was maintaining the narrative, because he knew “his team” had something special planned.
Russia are winning, and will win, and the West are setting the stage to pretend it is “only” because of some great “atrocity”. That’s all they can salvage from here.
Another really interesting read. Standard of comments are disappointing as per usual unfortunately.
China’s only interest in Ukraine is to watch and learn how NATO and the world react, before it acts on Taiwan
War what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94bqk8cB9iQ&ab_channel=Perun
The age of imperialist rivalry and war is experiencing its last Hurrah.
Another world is possible.
Victory in Ukraine will be a victory of people power in both Ukraine and Russia.
“Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
Arundhati Roy
What the pro-war Putinbot trolls don’t or won’t understand is that the war in Ukraine, when boiled down to it, is a people’s war.
No super-power in history, no matter how powerful, has ever prevailed against a people’s war.
The people’s war in Ukraine is being supplied with weapons by Nato and the West to keep them in the fight.
Vietnam was supplied with weapons by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to keep that people in the fight against the US imperialists.
There is nothing altruistic about it. It serves one imperialist bloc to see its rival imperialist bloc stuck in a quagmire.
This is why the US send weapons to Ukraine to keep them in the fight, but refuse Ukraine’s request for the long range precision weapons Ukraine need to end the war.
Without these weapons Ukraine will still defeat the Russian Federation, it will just take longer, with many more needless deaths on both sides.
But even without any material support from a rival imperialist bloc. the Afghan people defeated Nato and the US superpower combined. It just took a long time. (13 years to be exact, America’s longest war ever).
“Putinbot trolls”, lovely Pat. Your stance the Chinese Marxists would describe as “running dog lickspittle capitalist roader”.
Yes Pat 100%.
Here’s to a Putinless, democratic Russia living in harmony with democratic Ukraine, Moldova and a democratic Belarus.
Victory for the Ukrainian and Russian people is at hand.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-troops-filmed-threatening-turn-171136957.html
…. In a five-minute clip released by the independent outlet Ostorozhno, Novosti, the men can be seen surrounding a commander sent out from Kaliningrad and warning him they will put up a fight if they are not heard.
“You can jail us all! How many years is it, 5, 7, 10? We don’t give a fuck!,” one soldier yells after the commander tries but fails to convince them to obey orders and storm Ukrainian positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging
….The high number of fragging incidents in the latter years of the Vietnam War was symptomatic of the unpopularity of the war with the American public and the breakdown of discipline in the U.S. Armed Forces. Documented and suspected fragging incidents totalled nearly nine hundred from 1969 to 1972.[5]
This is how it ends in victory for Ukrainians and Russians.
He aha te mea nui o te ao?
He tangata, he tangata, he tangata!
Well said Pat!