This war is making everyone vulnerable to inflationary pressures, triggering an unprecedented energy crisis and acute food shortages. Hence, diplomacy and talks for conflict termination should have been the logical option long back, but no party to the war seems to be thinking about it due to own strategic interests.
The Russia-Ukraine war seems to be entering a deadly phase after seven months, by witnessing a significant twist in the form of Kremlin declaring victory in a hasty referendum in four regions of occupied territory on joining Russia, thus poising itself for the complete annexation of the occupied areas, and announcing a partial mobilization by calling up 300,000 reservists for frontline duties. The recent successes of Ukrainian counter-offensive—as cumulative military aid of over $60 billion poured into Ukraine from the US-led NATO—seems to have emboldened Zelenskyy to talk of defeating Russia and getting back his entire territory. An angry NATO, left out of battle by a nuclear threat, calling out a sham referendum, is looking to table a new resolution against it, knowing fully well that it will be vetoed by Russia.
This prolonged war is making everyone in the world vulnerable to inflationary pressures, triggering an unprecedented energy crisis and acute food shortages. In view of this, diplomacy and talks for conflict termination should have been the logical option long back, but no party to the war seems to be thinking about it due to own strategic interests, wanting to make more gains before getting back to the negotiating table. All parties know that they can’t be outright winners in this war, but all are prolonging their agony to avoid being an outright loser.
Russia is yet to achieve its strategic aim of liberating the complete Donbass region and the remaining southern Ukraine to landlock it, to join up with Transnistria. It has suffered heavy casualties and reverses in many regions like Kharkiv. It has received no worthwhile military materiel support from anyone in the prolonged war; hence, consolidating its gains, redeployment of troops in Russian friendly areas by pulling back from unfriendly ones, along with regrouping and rejigging the military hierarchy make for a sensible option from the military perspective.
The awkward and thinly veiled threat by President Putin to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, if Russian “territorial integrity” is threatened, has put NATO on notice as to how it would respond. The expected annexation post the referendum complicates the nuclear threat, as an attack on an annexed territory may invite nuclear response as per Russian nuclear policy.
Putin may not be feeling encouraged by the meek support from China, its “strategic partner with no limits”, which is seemingly responding within careful limits. And comments like “not an era of war” from an otherwise impartial India are also not helping. Russia might end up with an extension of a direct land border with NATO by over 1,000 km in terms of Finland joining the security alliance. It also continues to suffer standoff attacks from Ukraine’s recently acquired long-range capabilities, including drones and clandestine raids of special forces and non-state actors like blasts in Crimea.
Russia is aware of its limitations in the areas of economic, diplomatic, information and political warfare. Russia’s much-criticised partial mobilisation and call for reservists is comparable to Ukraine’s, which carried this out while under Martial Law, seven months ago and was praised by the Western media for it, which highlights an information warfare against Russia. And now Russia will be prone to hold on to its existing territorial gains and prolong the conflict into the winter, which could favour a new offensive to accomplish its remaining military objectives to give itself a stronger negotiating position to have the sanctions lifted.
Having accepted so much of political, strategic and military investment from NATO in his country and tasting some successes in his counteroffensives, President Zelenskyy, posing to be fighting on behalf of the US-led NATO to weaken Russia, is not in a position to back out from prolonging the war.
Ukraine cannot overlook the fact that it has lost 15% of its original land since being independent, is left with over 10 million refugees, devastated towns, has suffered significant casualties, and its hyped democracy is struggling under martial law and referendum. While the US-led NATO’s military assistance and arsenal can increase its combat power to launch standoff attacks, regaining lost ground from the Russians will be very difficult because they will use built-up areas for defending their gains in a manner similar to how Ukrainian troops did, more so under a nuclear hangover.
NATO’s military support to pursue the war will not bring Ukraine any closer to peace; nevertheless, it may result in long-term changes to its territorial configuration, an unending proxy war, and enhance long term Russian threat. President Zelenskyy is aware that the western narrative and information war that portray him as a hero and a clear victor is unsustainable, yet he will prolong the conflict in order to safeguard his political survival and continued aid.
NATO may be encouraged by the successes of the Ukrainian counter-offensives, and its own gains in a non-kinetic, non-contact, undeclared war against Russia in economic, information, diplomatic and political domains, but it cannot take Putin’s nuclear threats lightly, because a tactical nuclear strike from a cornered Russia is within the realms of possibility, if Russia declares its newly acquired territory as its integral part, post a successful referendum and applies the policy of “escalate to de-escalate”.
The United States may benefit from the sales of arms, energy, and post-conflict construction contracts in Ukraine, and it may justify recent increases in aid in order to pursue its goal of weakening Russia in order to fend off potential rivals in Europe, but its biggest strategic loss is bringing Russia, China, and Iran closer than ever before in a strategic partnership. It may be the beginning of the adoption of an alternate global/localised financial systems, undermining its grip on the current global financial system.
NATO, encouraged by a soft Russian response to the bid of Finland and Sweden to join NATO, is keen to add both with strong militaries, to secure its northern flank for better collective security posture in the long run. It also makes sense in context of Sino-Russian footprints in the Arctic region and North Atlantic Ocean.
NATO will continue to urge Russia to end the conflict while supporting Ukraine in its proxy war until the last Ukrainian standing, because any negotiations when a sizable portion of the land is in Russian hands will be viewed as NATO’s weakness. With millions of refugees mixed in with activated mercenaries and a longer border with belligerent Russia, which will reorganise itself after learning from its mistakes, the war is undoubtedly not making Europe more peaceful. It has signalled its willingness to sacrifice its energy and economic interests in order to achieve that goal. To effectively combat unfriendly Russia in the long run, the EU will need to increase its defence spending while holding some sovereign decisions hostage to the US.
Despite the narrative and rhetoric of the West, Ukraine may not recapture a sizable amount of territory, but standoff strikes, proxy war, clandestine operations, and some ground operations to cause Russian fatalities will continue in the coming days, inviting an equal or stronger Russian reaction.
In the Big Powers’ contestation in Ukraine, the global need is that this war should end, but any negotiations are unlikely, because Russia has not yet achieved its strategic objectives on the ground, which is essential to persuade NATO to lift sanctions. On the other side, the US-led NATO doesn’t have any leverage to restrain Putin, so it finds weakening Russia by the ongoing proxy war, without sharing any burden of body bags, as the most convenient option. This is especially true when Zelensky is prepared to take this move because he understands that without US support, he will lose his position of power.
In the current phase of the offensive, Russia seems to have reached its culmination point before seizing the centre of gravity of the Ukrainian forces, a situation which is uncomfortable for any attacker in a military campaign. The referendum and nuclear threat by Russia have pushed the war into the next phase, with NATO yet to work out its response.
Major General S.B. Asthana is a retired Army officer. The views expressed are personal to the author, who retains the copyright.