Failing to help Ukraine win could actually give Russia an asset in the long run. Ukraine was once yoked to Soviet ambitions notwithstanding Ukraine's resistance to Russification--like many other nations within the Soviet empire. The Russians could do that again.
The war continues. Even as Russia continues to plow forward slowly while suffering high casualties, it seems to me as if Ukraine is managing bigger and more effective local counter-attacks recently. What's up with that? I'm not the only one noticing.
I've long worried that if the West won't help Ukraine win that over time the Ukrainians will resent the West and tilt toward Russia as a better chance for peaceful lives despite the price. The first step could be a "peace" deal that leaves Ukraine exposed to further Russian aggression when NATO's attention wanes:
JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States, has a global trends advisory organization called the Center for Geopolitics. One of its recent studies believes the Ukraine war’s likely outcome is a mixed deal between Russia and Ukraine without foreign troops or security guarantees.
Their timing is off since their projected date in their report already passed. But the most likely outcome (of four offered) is depressing:
The third outcome is labeled “Georgia”, which the report’s authors say has a 50% chance of adoption. This scenario rules out foreign troops and other security and financial guarantees. It would potentially include a package of reconstruction assistance, but not using frozen Russian assets for the purpose.
Under the scenario, Ukraine would not be integrated into either the European Union or NATO. The authors think that if the Georgia outcome wins out, Ukraine will drift inexorably into the Russian orbit for trade and other reasons.
The authors argue that “Restrictions on military size and capacity – if part of a negotiated settlement – could prematurely stifle Ukraine’s dynamic defense and tech sectors, erasing a potential engine of postwar growth.”
And then all we've done with years of arming and helping Ukraine fight is help a potential vassal of Russia--the worst case scenario--get better at warfare yoked to Moscow's objectives.
And the same flip in Ukrainian attitudes--hey, they need to survive under Moscow's cruel rule--could take place if Russia wins on the battlefield:
Despite fierce resistance and brilliant innovation, Ukraine is losing ground at an unsustainable rate, and morale is dropping. While it would still take quite a few years on paper for Russia to achieve its war goals, the fact is that collapse at the front may be imminent.
I'm not sure what to make of one soldier's view through the straw of his limited experience for making a broader statement. But my fears tell me he could be right. The front is a lava-flow stalemate, but behind the slow-moving lines things are happening. I've hoped Russia's war effort would collapse first yet feared Ukraine's could.
Helping Ukraine win--a possibility Trump raised as Russia returned to "nyet" form after the Alaska meeting--would ease my worries of a rapid or slow absorption of Ukraine's military potential into Russia's war making capacity. If America won't directly provide military aid to Ukraine (intelligence is another matter) to tip that balance to Ukraine, will America undermine Russia's economy to tip the balance that way?
Have a super sparkly day.
NOTE: ISW updates continue here. Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump.
NOTE: You may also read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved.
NOTE: I made the image with Bing. It didn't get the NATO part right. Or the Moldova area. But close enough for blogging work.
