4 options for the end of the war: when and how it can happen, based on the current situation
Based on today's situation, analyst Anatoly Amelin sees four ways to end the war in Ukraine. How they will be implemented and what the interest will be for Ukraine is the main question to which the answer does not always depend solely on Ukraine itself...
When and how will the war end?
It is important to remember that some are participants in the war, while others determine its outcomes. Whether we like it or not, Ukraine has no chance of stopping the war on its own, let alone winning it.
War is primarily an economy (the resources you use for war and the outcome you can achieve by winning).
Ukrainian leaders directly state that "they should never deal with the economy, but with war."
Others deal with the economy. And from these others, Ukraine today critically depends on resources to continue its defense, not to mention offensive actions.
It cannot meet orders even for its own military equipment.
Here is a quote from Minister Stratprom Kamishin: "Ukraine's production capacity exceeds the defense procurement budget threefold."
The military says negotiations are taking place on the battlefield. And the battlefield critically depends on American military aid. So, the US will determine the scenarios and the outcome.
And this outcome has already been described, whether we like it or not. A year ago, the private intelligence corporation RAND described the main scenario.
RAND is an American ThinkTank that functions as a strategic research center commissioned by the US government, its armed forces, and related organizations.
In Ukraine, the government almost lacks understanding of the importance of working with ThinkTanks (we have been living like strangers for 33 years without our own mind).
Here's what they say:
- - This conflict already brings benefits to the US in terms of weakening Russia;
- - However, the US is not ready to expand the territory of the conflict beyond Ukraine;
- - Globally, the US is not interested in a protracted conflict, as it leads to high energy prices, high inflation and the cost of credit resources, weak rates of global economic growth and the US economy;
- - Nevertheless, for a certain period of time, this conflict creates advantages for the United States, especially by increasing sanctions pressure on Russia, reducing Europe's energy dependence on Russia (and increasing dependence on the United States);
The US has a serious influence on the choice of scenarios for the development of events in this military conflict. The scenarios for ending the war have long been known (and described in the document).
- - Victory for one side (which means the complete loss of the other) does not suit global players; each of these options creates risks that will lead to direct confrontation between Russia and NATO, meaning US intervention or the use of nuclear weapons (in the event of the defeat of the Russian Federation, i.e., US intervention).
- - Protracted conflict. The war does not end, exhausting all parties. This scenario benefits the side with a larger fund of financial and military aid, but the problem is that the parties are already exhausted.
- - Freezing the conflict. Conditionally, both sides rest on the understanding that neither side has the resources for victory, but neither is ready to admit defeat. This is the format of the ATO (Anti-Terrorist Operation) from 2015 with sporadic raids, drones, and the risk of resuming at any moment. This does not solve any global task for the US, except for maintaining tensions for Russia and the risk for Ukraine.
- - Political settlement. This is an agreement solution with a large number of options for negotiation conditions:
- - Preservation of control over occupied territories (by both sides);
- - Ukraine's participation or non-participation in NATO;
- - Presence or absence of security guarantees for Ukraine;
- - Maintenance or lifting of sanctions on Russia;
- - Compensation or forgiveness of damage caused to Ukraine.
3 / 5
Indeed, the latter scenario is the basis for the US, according to the text. Consultations on this are ongoing. The question is in which configuration the ceasefire formula will be achieved.
For the US, it is not important which territory Ukraine will regain or not. What matters is controlling the situation and their advantages!
"Control" is key in this formula. And states can manage this formula very effectively.
…
More than 12 years ago, when I was studying in a program in Washington, my colleagues and I went to a basketball tournament in New York...
Let me tell you, despite my lukewarm attitude towards sports, I enjoyed this EVENT. I don't remember the names of the teams, but I recall that the First Team was in a higher league - a top-tier team, while the second team was much weaker.
The outcome seemed obvious before the game even started. But... the better team trailed behind the other (!) from the first minutes. After a brief pause, reinforcements came in. That's when they started taking the lead strongly.
Pause. Weaker players were reintroduced. The teams went neck and neck with no clear leader. The intrigue lasted throughout the match, and the entire arena was on adrenaline. However, in the final minutes, the lineup of the top-tier team strengthened and emerged victorious.
It was truly a vivid example of controlled outcome.
……
That's also the case in Ukraine.
We all know about the hundreds of thousands of military equipment units in American warehouses, the tens of thousands of aircraft, helicopters, tanks, and armored carriers. Why not give them to Ukraine? The war would have ended long ago, and Ukrainian tanks would be in the Kremlin!
But what about the intrigues?
Actually, the reason is different.
States are global players and are accustomed to determining the configuration of agreements and the architecture of the future security system themselves. It is extremely disadvantageous for them to lose any of the sides, but it is beneficial for them to retain control over the situation in their hands, i.e., over each of the sides in the conflict with all the consequences that follow.
As stated above, Ukraine needs to accept a set of conditions:
- - Renouncing territory (in one form or another, not even necessary to document it in writing).
- - Leaving NATO in exchange for security guarantees in the scenario of Israel or South Korea. This is necessary for Russia to feel like an imaginary winner.
- - Guaranteeing the preservation of ceasefire conditions with Moscow (and not attacking its oil refineries with long-range drones). And here, according to the opinion of the United States, Ukrainians behave extremely inappropriately.
Are Ukrainians ready for such a format?
- - Ukrainian authorities, relying on decision-making and social surveys, are certain that they will not:
- - Ukrainians are not ready to give up territory because they have been promised otherwise, and they believe in the borders from 1991 and barbecues in Crimea.
- - Ukrainians are not ready to leave NATO because they have been told about it for so many years, it is even included in the Constitution.
- - Ukrainians are not ready to feel like losers, especially not under the Horde. And this has already become a reason for the Ukrainian side to refuse negotiations in various formats.
- - Instead of playing a team game with the Americans, Ukraine is blackmailing the West by saying that without military assistance, Russian tanks will be in Warsaw and Berlin (!).
This does not fit into the global understanding of the system of subordination. As early as the summer of 2023, Ukraine's military and financial aid was being limited. Yes, despite the fact that the US is a global player and determines the format of the future new world order, Ukraine is confused here and is trying to outsmart everyone.
In March 2022, Ukraine succeeded, and 72 hours turned into two years of war. Yes, the US has already benefited from this. But they cannot understand why a random pawn on their chessboard is causing confusion under their feet and not accepting the rules of the game?
To be honest, at several high-level meetings in Washington, strong irritation towards Ukraine was heard. And the game against Ukraine. Instead of starting to discuss the configuration of the ceasefire and having honest discussions with its citizens, despite the ratings, Ukraine is preoccupied with itself.
We repeat the forecast from last year:
- - The key scenario is the freezing of the conflict in the autumn of 2024.
- - Ukraine will receive military and financial aid only after reaching an agreement with the US and others on ending the war.
- - Security guarantees for Ukraine and hundreds of billions of dollars in investments will definitely be part of this package.
- - And, of course, guarantees to the country's top officials.
Which ones? It will still be possible to agree on that.