100 DAYS OF WAR IN UKRAINE
General David Petraeus provided the most famous quote from the eleven yearlong American war in Iraq. Only a few months following the invasion in 2003 Petraeus asked a journalist during an interview, “tell me how this ends?” As the war between Russia and Ukraine enters its fourth month this same question is appropriate once again.
Many experts argued even in the days immediately prior to Moscow’s invasion that this war would not occur. Others believed that if Russia attacked Ukraine its forces would be successful in a few days or weeks and quickly occupy most if not all the country. Few believed it would last this long. The strength and resilience of the Ukrainians to resist was grossly underestimated. The abilities of the Russian military were terribly overestimated.
Mr. Putin made two enormous strategic miscalculations. He believed Russian forces would achieve a quick victory with little fighting like they had done when they occupied Crimea in 2014. Ukrainian forces drove the Russians back from the gates of Kyiv and forced them to retreat from Kharkiv. Their defiant 82-day defense of Mariupol served not only as a rallying point for Ukrainian resistance but a focal point for Russian military incompetence. Ironically, Mr. Putin’s war has dramatically increased both Ukrainian nationalism and identity.
Putin also thought that the West would remain divided and unable to mount a cohesive response to his aggression. But he has rather done more for NATO unity than anyone since the end of the Cold War. The new German government of Olav Schoultz has announced a dramatic increase in defense spending and a willingness to provide heavy weaponry to Ukraine. The Alliance appears stronger than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and it appears both Sweden and Finland will soon become members. As one observer noted, “In a few weeks Putin undermined two centuries of Swedish neutrality and decades of German pacifism.”
The human cost to both countries has been enormous. Moscow now admits that it has lost more soldiers in the past three months than it lost in a decade of fighting in Afghanistan. Roughly one quarter of the force that attacked Ukraine on February 24th is either dead, wounded, captured, or missing. Ukrainian leaders have provided little information on their casualties but have admitted they are losing over one hundred soldiers per day. In addition, over 6.5 million Ukrainians have fled the country and another seven million are internally displaced. No one knows how many civilians have been killed, but there are reports that more than 10,000 may have died during the siege of Mariupol alone. These grim figures coupled with unmistakable evidence of Russian war crimes and atrocities against civilians have shocked the world.
The future economic consequences are staggering for both countries, and this will become increasingly apparent in the months ahead. Russia has so far been able to weather the storm of sanctions well. The ruble has been propped up by the Kremlin and consequently has been one of the strongest international currencies for the past few months. Still, Moscow’s mayor announced that the city may lose 200,000 jobs as over six hundred foreign corporations including Mcdonald's and Starbucks end operations in Russia. Economists predict that Russian GDP will drop by ten percent this year and could be reduced by half in the next several years. Moscow could soon default on its international debt. The economic situation for Ukraine is dire. Its GDP will drop by forty-five percent this year, and it has suffered billions if not trillions of dollars in damage to infrastructure. Kyiv will need dramatic economic assistance in the near term as well as a massive influx of capital to rebuild.
But the consequences of this war are clearly far-reaching. The World Bank lowered its forecast for global economic growth. Energy shortages will continue and result in rising inflation internationally. Furthermore, prior to this conflict Ukraine and Russia provided thirty percent of wheat for global markets and were also major exporters of fertilizer. At this moment over twenty million tons of grain are trapped in Ukrainian ports. If the war ended tomorrow, it would be several years before Ukraine could reach its previous level of grain production.
Consequently, the World Food Organization estimates that 1.8 billion people around the globe could face food shortages in near future. The situation in countries like Afghanistan, Syria, or Yemen may be catastrophic, as their populations may suffer starvation on a large scale. This tragedy will also have corresponding effects on social stability, unrest, and migration around the globe. One need only examine what is now occurring in Sri Lanka to get a preview.
Experts often describe war as a contest of will, and this is true in this conflict as well. The war drags on and is now a battle of attrition. If Ukraine’s main problem has been a shortage of weapons and ammunition, Russia’s challenge appears to be a shortage of willing and competent soldiers. Putin’s surreal Victory Day speech to the Russian people asked for more volunteers. But he made no announcement about mass mobilization, expanded conscription, a declaration of war, or even a warning to his population to prepare for more sacrifice.
Consequently, artillery has become the primary weapon of choice on both sides, and Moscow appears to have reduced its objectives to securing the Donbas (the provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk) as well as the land bridge connecting the Russian border and Crimea. Consequently, Russian forces are using massed artillery fire and thermobaric weapons coupled with limited attacks by mechanized forces to slowly achieve this goal. At the same time, Moscow is “russifying” the areas it controls by introducing the ruble as local currency, appointing new political leaders, and improving its ability to defend the territory it occupies.
Fred Ikle served as an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson and authored a famous book entitled Every War Must End. Ikle observed that any leader who takes a nation to war must consider how to end it and continue their analysis as the conflict evolves. Western leaders must do so now. Ukraine’s goals in this war and the goals of the West overlap but may not be coincident. Consequently, serious discussions must be undertaken to determine what is an “end-game” acceptable to Washington and its allies.
It is possible (if not likely) that if Russia is able to secure Luhansk and Donetsk that Mr. Putin might call for a ceasefire and negotiations. Many in the West might well rejoice. President Macron of France, Prime Minister Draghi of Italy as well as the venerable Henry Kissinger have all urged negotiations and suggested Ukraine should be prepared to cede land to Putin in return for peace. Proposals have urged the demilitarization of the frontlines under UN supervision, negotiations on the future status of Ukraine with respect to NATO and the EU, an agreement focused on the territory Russia occupies in Crimea and the Donbas, as well as a multilateral agreement focused on long term European security. The United States and the West will be at least “silent partners” in any negotiations, as Putin will demand the reduction if not the elimination of sanctions.
Ikle would recommend against this. He would argue that history supports Winston Churchill’s remark that “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth” is applicable. Any negotiation that rewards Putin for this aggression legitimizes both him and the conflict. In his mind, it would provide the Russian military an operational pause to rebuild and recommence hostilities at a time of his choosing. Furthermore, a settlement that depends on Putin and those around him to participate in a new balanced European security architecture is an illusion. It must be clearly understood that Putin has chosen not to integrate Russia into a European wide system. He rather seeks to destroy the current system and replace it with one in which Russia is more powerful.
Mr. Biden and his administration must prepare the Alliance for potentially a long war as well as preparing for the conflict to end abruptly and messily. This will require extraordinary statesmanship and diplomacy. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's comment that the United States should seek to weaken Russia to the “degree that it can’t do the things that it has done in invading Ukraine” was stunning to many, but that does not make his words any less true. Accomplishing this task while maintaining Alliance unity and avoiding a nuclear confrontation is the challenge for the Biden administration in bringing this conflict to an end.
