The War Freeze: When It Will Happen, How It Will Happen, and What Will Happen to Ukraine Later

Currently, the geopolitical situation is such

that freezing the war in Ukraine is beneficial for everyone, writes analyst
Anatoly Amelin. Ukraine may be forced to freeze the conflict and it is
important to understand what the conditions will be, what the consequences will
be and what will have to be done for the country to have a future.

What awaits Ukraine in the coming year?

Several theses on the possible scenario of the
development of events in Ukraine in the coming year (based on the results of
several important conversations).

You should start with the main things. For
starters, no one knows what the future holds. There are many future scenarios,
but one can plan the future (analyze its scenarios and the factors that
influence them, estimate the probability of a certain scenario).

The future can be influenced. Or rather, it can
be created. But for that you have to be a subject and have your own plan to
achieve the formulated goals.

About the scenarios. The beginning of the
scenario is the fall of 2024. Freezing is good for everyone. It is useful
primarily for the US. The US has already spent nearly $200 billion on aid to
Ukraine. Ukraine has persevered, Russia has been weakened, the US defense
industry has received record orders, NATO has been given a second life, China's
economic position has been weakened.

The main objectives for the USA have been
achieved. The loss and fall of Russia are not included in these goals. But the
US sees the risk of rapprochement between Russia and China, and the
continuation of the war will only accelerate that path.

The main thing is that the states do not see the
prospect of "burning" more money for the war. And you can stop the
"burning" only by freezing.

Freezing the conflict is good for Europe. The EU
has already spent almost 150 billion euros on aid. And they plan to spend
another 35 billion. It is increasingly difficult for European politicians to
explain to their voters where their money is being spent.

Against the negative backdrop of Europe, Russian
agents spread news of corruption in Ukraine. The EU wants to have security in
the region, but it does not want to continue spending so much money on that
segment. The EU wants to return to trade with Russia, a large market for
European goods.

Freezing the conflict is also useful for China.
The invasion of Ukraine and the long conflict have canceled China's plans for
the successful development of the Belt and Road project, which has lost its
primacy among the main trading partners of the United States. The Chinese
economy is on the verge of deep problems, and at the same time, China has not
finished arming its army (it planned to do so until 2027).

Russia is equally interested in
"freezing" and freeing the territories of the Kursk region. The
Russian economy, too, is experiencing deep problems and needs a
"rest". The cost of the war has already cost it more than $200
billion, not including the consequences of sanctions. The appearance of troops
from North Korea only confirms the ongoing crisis in both the economy and the
military.

The main question is in what format and under
what conditions the "freezing" will occur.

 Ukraine.
The author does not want to write that Ukraine is interested in
"freezing". Ukraine is interested in winning and ending the war. But
war always relies on resources. Ukraine cannot finance its budget on its own,
and its partners help it in this. $36 billion is a budget hole that partners
are closing.

Without a partner, Ukraine cannot continue the
war. And if the "freeze" is profitable for the partners, they will
simply "close" the faucet of financial and military aid to Ukraine.

How and when will the freeze occur?

In that part, everyone has their own conditions.
Russia wants to maximally control the territories of Ukraine, demilitarize
Ukraine, get guarantees that Crimea and the occupied territories will not be
the subject of further disputes, the return of the territory of the Kursk
region, preserve the land corridor to Crimea (in the south of Ukraine),
unfreeze its assets and, of course, wants Ukraine not to enter in NATO.

The US and Europe want a "freeze" along
the line of contact, as well as guarantees that the conflict will not repeat
itself and that Europe will be safe, and reduce costs by removing the
"headache".

They see no prospects for a military victory and
believe that the continuation of the war only "burns up" resources
every day and creates internal problems for them.

In principle, China wants the end of the war, the
lifting of sanctions, the opening of the borders of Russia and Europe, but it
does not want a strong Russia. It needs a weak Russia — a supplier of raw
materials needed by China. China will need the capabilities of the Russian
military-industrial complex to prepare for a major war.

Although Ukraine does not officially articulate
its "freeze" plan, the Kursk operation is directly related to it,

Kursk Oblast (the part controlled by Ukraine)
will be exchanged, most likely, for the occupied territories of Zaporizhzhya
and Kherson Oblasts, therefore the "Ukrainian freeze option" is the
maximum release of Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. Next is gaining control over
ZNPP, obtaining security guarantees and not repeating the invasion.

How to get to these options?

As they say in the army, "negotiations are
fought on the battlefield". And escalating the conflict is one way to
raise the stakes: Ukraine wants to strike deep into Russia with Western
weapons. Ukraine controls part of the territory of Russia. Ukraine already has
a sufficient number of its own funds for long-term damage, which allow raising
the stakes. The appearance of soldiers from North Korea in the ranks of the
Russian army, the acquisition of missiles from Korea and Iran, the continuation
of the massive shelling of Ukraine with missiles and drones is the Russian
version of raising the stakes.

The US is weighing the possibility of lowering
oil prices as a tool to "further weaken the Russian war economy".

The statement of the energy minister of Saudi
Arabia, who threatens to bring down oil prices to $50, is not accidental. It is
also raising the stakes.

Like the invitation to Ukraine to become a member
of NATO, it is also an increase in stakes.

And one should not think that there are no
negotiations today. They are going in the direction that the construction of
the future "frozen peace" is already being discussed. It's just hard
to say what role Ukraine will play in these negotiations. Does he have the
right to vote or not? The main thing is that the "freezing" process
has already started.

When can we expect the result?

The US election is the main deciding factor. The
other is the successes or failures of Russia and Ukraine on the front (both in
Ukraine and in Russia). There is no need to wait for a freeze between the
election and the inauguration. That is, February is the period of activation of
the process. It will take at least three months. April-May 2025 is a potential
period of official ceasefire. This is just a scenario. But a lot can change
under the influence of "black swans".

What will happen to Ukraine?

That is the most difficult and painful question.
The answer depends on a number of important factors: To begin with, a security
guarantee for Ukraine. It's not just about "memorandums". We are
talking about the real protection of Ukraine and Europe from a new war. Here it
can be the accession of Ukraine to NATO (which the author doubts, because he
believes that this idea should be abandoned in exchange for Russia's
concessions) and the formation of a local defense union (Ukraine, Poland, Latvia,
Estonia, Lithuania and Great Britain) + the status of an ally of the USA (by
analogy with South Korea and Israel).

An additional guarantee of security will be the
closing of the skies (both by our own air defense systems and by European
ones), securing orders for the Ukrainian defense industry for the next five to
10 years,

construction of a network of defense facilities,
placement of the American military contingent in Ukraine (by analogy with South
Korea).

When it comes to the economy, the fact is that
the Ukrainian economy is destroyed. In the first year of the invasion, 30
percent of the economy was lost. Economic recovery will be affected by the
amount and quality of capital that Ukraine will be able to collect and that
will be given to it by partners, technologies (this is the commercialization of
Ukrainian technologies and the transfer to Ukraine of modern technologies of
Western countries, especially the production of microelectronics, as an option),

people. The return of Ukrainians (stimulation,
not pressure) and a balanced migration policy.

If the West is ready to invest in Ukraine at
least 50 percent of what it spent on the war, then Ukraine can get up to 100
billion dollars a year. And we are not talking about loans, but about
investments in infrastructure;

defense industry sector, IT, microelectronics,
energy production and storage, agriculture and processing, mechanical and
robotic engineering.

In this process, the main factor is state
management. Without choices there will be no money. Without changing the state
management system (dropping the ball, canceling 70 percent of state functions
that are needed only by officials), there will be no money.

I remind you that Ukraine is in 150th place
according to the index of economic freedom. Without a long-term strategy
(understandable to investors) there will be no money. Strategy is the fate of
subjects.

Without restarting the judicial and law
enforcement systems, there will be no money. Without changing the fiscal system
(where Ukraine is an outsider in Europe), there will be no money.

You can go on, but when talking about scenarios,
without the implementation of the factors described above, Ukraine has no
future. There will be no described changes - there will be no investment. There
will be no investment - there will be no economy, there will be no work and a
decent standard of living. There will be no economy - there will be no strong
defense industry and no strong army. There will be no security - no people and
no future.

What is described is not a dogma, but only a
discussion of the most likely scenario. It is important to understand that the
next year is decisive for the future of Ukraine, Europe and each of us.