The Ukrainians can’t take back lost territory, but they’re not going to get rolled over either. This has come down to a war of economic attrition. It’s what’s happening in the Russian rear that decides this.
Strange as it seems to say this, the Trump administration played this well. They negotiated with both sides, saw that the Ukrainians were willing to make concessions while Putin was stubborn, so they went with the side where they could make money.
The thing I don’t understand is that the administration pulled out of the peace negotiations, but the gas deal with Ukraine requires peace to be realized. Nobody is going to build shale gas extraction facilities in an active war zone, after all.
So, either the Trump administration knows something we don’t about Russia’s ability to continue the war, or they will have to force Ukraine to make concessions to get a peace deal. In both cases, they’d be better off continuing the peace talks, no?
A peace plan was always a foolish promise, the two sides remain too far apart in what they are willing to accept. There is no amount of pressure that Trump is willing to exert on the two parties combined that will overcome all the hurdles to some sort of compromise, unless we want to get directly involved with our own troops.
Ukraine requires a hard security guarantee, something with more teeth than the Budapest Memorandum. (which specified no actual actions from the signatories, just a vague promise) That is non-negotiable for them, not getting one leaves them in pretty much the same position they were in when the war started, except with less land–not good prospects for future survival. Trump has been unwilling to promise this, though, because it could pull the US actively into a war in the future with no benefit for him. This, of course, is exactly what would be so appealing about one to the Ukrainians, it would be a formidable security arrangement.
Putin requires a significant victory he can bring home, not something half-assed. His support among his fellow elites, who have made sacrifices for this war, hinges on making that worth something. He needs more of the land, at very least the 4 Oblasts he has formally annexed into the Russian Federation. Otherwise he is literally leaving what they now see as formal parts of Russia in enemy hands and saying “ok I guess we’re done now”. If he can’t secure them (he has around half currently), it means all these losses were basically for nothing, and that is a dire threat to an authoritarian leader. This would put him in an absolutely horrible, nigh-suicidal position where he would have to stay away from windows for the rest of his life.
So, it’s basically existential for both sides. They also both retain possible routes to victory, it’s not out of the question for either of them. Ukraine could try to outlast the Russian war economy, war economies are not sustainable forever. Russia could try to continue their slow progress on the ground, they still have more troops. It’s not easy to bridge these two sides, no amount of money or resources or soft pressure could bribe them away from their primary objectives.
Overall, I would absolutely agree with you. But with the recent fall of oil prices, I don’t think the economics are there for Putin to be able to sustain the war. He needs it to end, and soon.
Zelenskyy, on the other hand, seems to have been rattled by the swiftness with which Russia pushed back Ukraine out of Kursk oblast once America stopped intelligence sharing.
I could see it play out like you describe: both sides continue to just want to outlast the other. Even then, the Trump administration plays linchpin: they can stop intelligence sharing again, and they can push the price of oil up and down to an extent.
I continue being surprised that the war is not more unpopular in Russia. Something that makes a million people flee out of their country can’t really be value neutral or even popular. But then again, Russia has a very long history of stubborn rulers that pushed things too far and then were overthrown when they wouldn’t relent, which is again the scenario you describe.
Good article, IMHO
Strange as it seems to say this, the Trump administration played this well. They negotiated with both sides, saw that the Ukrainians were willing to make concessions while Putin was stubborn, so they went with the side where they could make money.
The thing I don’t understand is that the administration pulled out of the peace negotiations, but the gas deal with Ukraine requires peace to be realized. Nobody is going to build shale gas extraction facilities in an active war zone, after all.
So, either the Trump administration knows something we don’t about Russia’s ability to continue the war, or they will have to force Ukraine to make concessions to get a peace deal. In both cases, they’d be better off continuing the peace talks, no?
What you think is 4D chess is really just a drunk shooter on a carousel who happened to make a good shot by sheer coincidence.
Remember Rocket Boy? That was the same thing.
I’m not “underestimating” Trump’s administration btw. They do have a plan. But it’s a very, very simple plan:
Love your description of their plan. You’ve provided a vivid yet concise explanation that outlines all the key ponys.
A peace plan was always a foolish promise, the two sides remain too far apart in what they are willing to accept. There is no amount of pressure that Trump is willing to exert on the two parties combined that will overcome all the hurdles to some sort of compromise, unless we want to get directly involved with our own troops.
Ukraine requires a hard security guarantee, something with more teeth than the Budapest Memorandum. (which specified no actual actions from the signatories, just a vague promise) That is non-negotiable for them, not getting one leaves them in pretty much the same position they were in when the war started, except with less land–not good prospects for future survival. Trump has been unwilling to promise this, though, because it could pull the US actively into a war in the future with no benefit for him. This, of course, is exactly what would be so appealing about one to the Ukrainians, it would be a formidable security arrangement.
Putin requires a significant victory he can bring home, not something half-assed. His support among his fellow elites, who have made sacrifices for this war, hinges on making that worth something. He needs more of the land, at very least the 4 Oblasts he has formally annexed into the Russian Federation. Otherwise he is literally leaving what they now see as formal parts of Russia in enemy hands and saying “ok I guess we’re done now”. If he can’t secure them (he has around half currently), it means all these losses were basically for nothing, and that is a dire threat to an authoritarian leader. This would put him in an absolutely horrible, nigh-suicidal position where he would have to stay away from windows for the rest of his life.
So, it’s basically existential for both sides. They also both retain possible routes to victory, it’s not out of the question for either of them. Ukraine could try to outlast the Russian war economy, war economies are not sustainable forever. Russia could try to continue their slow progress on the ground, they still have more troops. It’s not easy to bridge these two sides, no amount of money or resources or soft pressure could bribe them away from their primary objectives.
Overall, I would absolutely agree with you. But with the recent fall of oil prices, I don’t think the economics are there for Putin to be able to sustain the war. He needs it to end, and soon.
Zelenskyy, on the other hand, seems to have been rattled by the swiftness with which Russia pushed back Ukraine out of Kursk oblast once America stopped intelligence sharing.
I could see it play out like you describe: both sides continue to just want to outlast the other. Even then, the Trump administration plays linchpin: they can stop intelligence sharing again, and they can push the price of oil up and down to an extent.
I continue being surprised that the war is not more unpopular in Russia. Something that makes a million people flee out of their country can’t really be value neutral or even popular. But then again, Russia has a very long history of stubborn rulers that pushed things too far and then were overthrown when they wouldn’t relent, which is again the scenario you describe.