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 glibly said to a journalist during an interview, “Tell me how this ends.” As the war between Russia and Ukraine enters its sixth month this same question is appropriate once again — and is just as difficult to answer.
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. Few believed it would last this long. The strength and resilience of the Ukrainians to resist were grossly underestimated. The abilities of the Russian military were terribly overestimated.
Putin made two enormous strategic miscalculations. He believed Russian forces would achieve a quick victory with little fighting as they had done when they occupied Crimea in 2014. But 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, 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 done more for NATO unity than anyone since the end of the Cold War. The new German government of Olaf Scholz announced a dramatic increase in defense spending and a willingness to provide heavy weaponry to Ukraine after the war started. Many other European members have done likewise. The Alliance appears stronger than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and it appears both Sweden and Finland will soon join after the U.S. Senate voted to approve their membership. 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 admits that it has lost more soldiers in the past three months than it lost in a decade of fighting in Afghanistan – though the total casualty figures remain unclear estimates are that Russia has suffered 15,000 to 25,000 killed in action. More than one-quarter of the force that attacked Ukraine on February 24 are either dead, wounded, captured, or missing. Ukrainian leaders have provided little information on their casualties but admitted they were losing over one hundred soldiers per day at the worst point of the war. 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 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. Absent foreign investment Russia could face long-term economic stagnation.
The economic situation for Ukraine is dire. Its GDP will drop by 45 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. The value of the hryvnia also began to drop last month after being propped up by Ukraine for months.
But the consequences of this war are clearly far-reaching beyond the two primary protagonists. 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 30 percent of wheat for global markets and were also major exporters of fertilizer. At this moment 20 million tons of grain remain trapped in Ukrainian ports. Even after the United Nations was able to hammer out an agreement for grain exports from Odessa. If the war ended tomorrow, it will be several months before the export backlog has been removed, and it will be several years before Ukraine could reach its previous level of grain production.
In part because of this, World Food Organization estimates that 1.8 billion people around the globe could face major food shortages. The situation in countries like Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, 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.
Experts often describe war as a contest of will, and it is true in this conflict. 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 has made no announcement about mass mobilization, expanded conscription, a declaration of war, or even a warning to his population to prepare for more sacrifice — though he has asked for volunteers and sought to recruit foreigners from Syria and Africa.
Today, 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. Russian forces are using massed artillery fire and thermobaric weapons coupled with limited attacks by mechanized forces to slowly achieve this goal.
The appearance in Ukraine of the HIMAR systems, an American long-range multiple rocket launcher, has been a game changer. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov claims the HIMARS is like “a scalpel” to dismantle Russia’s control of the south and east. The south is where Ukraine is making some progress using these weapons to destroy Russian logistics and command/control networks, as they commence a counteroffensive focused on the key city of Kherson.
Meanwhile, in the east, the situation remains difficult for the defenders. They are now pressing for residents to evacuate the city of Kramatorsk as the Russians continue to make small gains in the Donbas. At the same time, Moscow is “Russifying” the areas it controls by introducing the ruble as local currency, providing Russian passports to locals, appointing new political leaders, and improving its ability to defend the territory it occupies. U.S. intelligence reports state that Russia is preparing to annex the areas under its control through sham referendums and other means.
The war could also escalate. Russian attacks on a nuclear plant in Ukraine’s east, the largest such plant in Europe, have the leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency fearing a “Chernobyl” catastrophe. Recently, a senior Kremlin spokesman described the United States as a protagonist in the conflict which increases the chance of a direct confrontation between the West and Russia. There are also growing tensions in the Balkans, between the Kosovars and the Serbians. It has long been KGB practice to cover for one problem by starting another. There is plenty of room for that to occur in the Balkans or elsewhere.
It is possible, if not likely, that if Russia is able to secure Luhansk and Donetsk that Putin might call for a ceasefire and negotiations. Many in the West might well rejoice. President Macron of France, former 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. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected these calls with increasing vehemence.
Proposals have urged the demilitarization of the frontlines under UN supervision, negotiations on the future status of Ukraine with respect to NATO as well as the EU, an agreement focused on the territory Russia occupies in Crimea and the Donbas, and a multilateral agreement focused on long term European security. The U.S. and the West will be at least “silent partners” in any negotiations, as Putin will demand the reduction if not the elimination of sanctions.
Many would argue, however, that history supports the alleged Winston Churchill’s remark that “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” 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 — a point emphasized by Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s leadership.
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.
Biden and his Administration must prepare the Alliance for the potential of a much longer war as well as for the possibility of the conflict ending abruptly and messily. This will require extraordinary statesmanship and diplomacy.
Secretary of Defense Austin’s comment a couple of months ago that the U.S. 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.
