Article originally appeared on the substack of John Mearsheimer, posted on the Live Journal page of Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin.
[ColonelCassad] This article examines the likely trajectory of the war in Ukraine.This article examines the likely trajectory of the war in Ukraine.This article examines the likely trajectory of the war in Ukraine.This article examines the likely trajectory of the war in Ukraine. I will answer two main questions.
Where are we now.
First, is a meaningful peace agreement possible? My answer is no. We are now in a war in which both sides - Ukraine and the West on the one hand, and Russia on the other - see each other as an existential threat that must be defeated . With maximalist goals everywhere, it's nearly impossible to reach a workable peace deal. Moreover, the two sides have irreconcilable differences over Ukraine's territory and relations with the West. The best possible outcome is a frozen conflict that could easily escalate into a hot war. The worst possible outcome is nuclear war, which is unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
In other words, Russia will win an ugly victory. But in the end, this will lead to the annexation of a large part of Ukrainian territory, while at the same time turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional stump of the state. In other words, it is not going to conquer all of Ukraine, which is necessary to achieve Moscow's three goals: regime overthrow, demilitarization of the country, and severing Kyiv's security ties with the West. Russia will eventually win the war, although it will not inflict a decisive defeat on Ukraine.
Before I address these issues directly, three preliminary remarks must be made. To begin with, I am trying to predict the future, which is not easy to do, given that we live in a world of uncertainty. Thus, I do not claim that I have an exact answer, in fact, some of my statements may be wrong. Moreover, I am not talking about what I would like to see happening. I don't support either side. I'm just telling you what I think will happen as the war progresses. Finally, I do not condone the behavior of Russia or the actions of any of the states involved in the conflict. I'm just explaining their actions.
To understand what the war in Ukraine is leading to, one must first assess the current situation. It is important to know how the three main actors - Russia, Ukraine and the West - assess their environment of threats and set goals for themselves. However, when we talk about the West, we are talking mostly about the United States, as its European allies take their orders from Washington when it comes to Ukraine. It is also important to understand the current situation on the battlefield. Let me start with the threats posed by Russia and its goals.
Since April 2008, it has become clear that Russian leaders across the board view Western efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO and turn it into a Western stronghold on Russia's borders as an existential threat.Indeed, President Putin and his aides repeatedly emphasized this in the months leading up to the Russian invasion, when it became clear to them that Ukraine was almost a de facto member of NATO.
Since the war began on February 24, 2022, the West has added another layer to this existential threat by adopting a new set of targets that Russian leaders cannot help but view as highly threatening. I will go into more detail about the Western goals below, but suffice it to say here that the West is determined to defeat Russia and knock it out of the ranks of the great powers, if not cause regime change or even provoke the collapse of Russia, as happened with the Soviet Union in 1991.
In his important address, which Putin delivered in February this year (2023), he stressed that the West poses a mortal threat to Russia. “During the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union,” he said, “the West never stopped trying to set fire to the post-Soviet states and, most importantly, to end Russia as the largest surviving part of the historical possessions of our state. They encouraged international terrorists to attack us, provoked regional conflicts along the perimeter of our borders, ignored our interests and tried to contain and suppress our economy.” He further emphasized that “the Western elite makes no secret of their goal, which is, I quote, the 'strategic defeat of Russia'. What does this mean for us? It means they plan to do away with us once and for all.”
Read the rest at the link
More from John Mearsheimer:
Darkness ahead: where the war in Ukraine is heading. Where are we heading
[ColonelCassad] Let me shift gear and move away from the present and talk about the future, starting with how events on the battlefield are likely to play out. As noted, I believe that Russia will win the war, which means that it will eventually seize and annex a significant amount of Ukrainian territory, leaving Ukraine as a dysfunctional stump state. If I am right, this will be a heavy defeat for Ukraine and the West.
However, there is a silver lining in this outcome: a Russian victory markedly reduces the threat of nuclear war, since nuclear escalation is more likely to occur if Ukrainian forces win on the battlefield and threaten to return all or most of the territories that Kiev ceded to Moscow. Russian leaders would no doubt seriously consider using nuclear weapons to salvage the situation. Of course, if I'm wrong about where the war is heading, and the Ukrainian military gets the upper hand and starts pushing Russian forces east, the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used will increase significantly, which doesn't mean it can be certain.
What is the basis of my assertion that the Russians are likely to win the war?
The war in Ukraine, as emphasized, is a war of attrition, in which the capture and retention of territory is of secondary importance. The goal of a war of attrition is to wear down the other side's forces to the point where they either stop fighting or are so weakened that they can no longer defend the contested territory. Who wins a war of attrition depends largely on three factors: the balance of resolve between the two sides; population ratio between them; and the exchange loss ratio. The Russians have a decisive advantage in population and a marked advantage in casualty ratio; Both sides are equal in determination.
Think about the balance of determination. As noted, both Russia and Ukraine believe they are facing an existential threat, and naturally both sides are fully committed to winning the war. Thus, it is difficult to see any meaningful difference in their resolve. In terms of population, before the start of the war in February 2022, Russia had an advantage of about 3.5:1. Since then, the ratio has changed markedly in favor of Russia. About eight million Ukrainians left the country, reducing the population of Ukraine. Approximately three million of these emigrants left for Russia, increasing its population. In addition, there are probably about four million more Ukrainian citizens living in the territories now controlled by Russia, further tilting the demographic imbalance in favor of Russia.
Finally, there is the loss-to-trade ratio, which has been a contentious issue since the war began in February 2022. The conventional wisdom in Ukraine and the West is that casualty rates on both sides are either roughly equal, or that the Russians have suffered more casualties than the Ukrainians. Oleksiy Danilov, head of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, goes so far as to claim that the Russians lost 7.5 soldiers for every Ukrainian soldier in the battle for Bakhmut. These statements are incorrect. The Ukrainian forces undoubtedly suffered far greater losses than their Russian counterparts, for one reason: Russia has far more artillery than Ukraine.
In a war of attrition, artillery is the most important weapon on the battlefield. In the US Army, artillery is widely known as the "king of battle" because it is primarily responsible for killing and injuring soldiers in combat. Thus, the balance of artillery is of the utmost importance in a war of attrition. By almost all accounts, the Russians have an advantage in artillery somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1, which puts the Ukrainian army at a significant disadvantage on the battlefield. Other things being equal, one would expect that the ratio of losses approximately corresponds to the balance of artillery. Consequently, according to the most conservative estimates, the ratio of losses is about 2:1 in favor of Russia.
One possible objection to my analysis is that Russia is the aggressor in this war, and the attacker invariably suffers much more casualties than the defender, especially if the attacking force engages in broad frontal assaults, which is often said to be the method of operation. Russian armed forces. After all, the intruder is out in the open and on the move, while the defender mostly fights from fixed positions that provide substantial cover. This logic is at the heart of the famous 3:1 rule of thumb, which states that an attacking force needs at least three times as many soldiers as a defending force to win a battle. But there are problems with this line of argument when it is applied to the war in Ukraine.
Read the rest at the link