A reason that could end the war between Russia and Ukraine within months

It is easy to see the war in Ukraine as a sign of a violent and inescapable world. But if the future looks bleak, it could be because we focus on the conflicts that are taking place and overlook the attractive power of peace, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“As an example, what happened on March 9, two weeks after the Russian invasion. At night, India mistakenly fired a cruise missile at Pakistan. As expected, calm followed. Both sides tried to avoid escalation – like they have done for decades, “she said. The focus on times when peace fails is a kind of prejudice, which makes us think that war is more common than it really is. The India incident is a good reminder of a simple truth: War is so destructive that enemies would rather hate each other peacefully. Even. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the world-changing conflict maker in Ukraine, has tried his best to avoid war in his own wicked way. For two decades, he used every possible dishonest way to win over Ukraine: black money, propaganda, political agents, poisoning, and separatist support. He did it all. “Despite the cost and the evil that surrounds it, it was not a reckless step like starting a war.”

The purpose of this presentation is not to underestimate the extent of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s brutal war deserves our utmost attention, but it would be misleading, not to mention frustrating, if we did not attract attraction of peace. More importantly, it will give us insights into when and how the current conflict may end. First, why did Russia invade? Every answer to the question “why are we fighting” is an example of society or its leaders ignoring the terrible price to be paid. and in isolation, it appears that Putin has underestimated the cost of the uncertain invasion of Ukraine. As a dictator, he also knew he would not have to pay most of it. , as well as self-preservation and power — and the eradication of democracy on its doorstep. But in the end, the cost of this war would be a powerful incentive to reduce the fighting. The most obvious cost was the death of tens of thousands, the reduction of cities to rubble, and the least obvious, but crucial, was the drainage of treasury effects on both sides.

Yuri Gorodnichenko, an economist at Berkeley, estimates that Ukraine will need half of its pre-war monthly national income to continue its conventional war. What Ukraine earns, of course, is very far from that amount. “Even if its factories and fields were to produce at full capacity, the state would not be able to bring these goods to market – the Russian occupation of Mariupol and its blockade of other Ukrainian ports meant that few goods remained.”

It has huge financial resources, but the price of the fight is still high. A Russian central banker believes that the resulting recession in his country will be as deep as the economic collapse after the Cold War – and even worse, because the recovery will be slower. If it continues. Fighting, he expects a “reversal of industrialization.” This is bad news for a president who has built his popularity on prosperity. That may be why Putin did not use his May 9 D-Day speech to end the conflict. The cost on both sides may indicate that the war in Ukraine will be over within months, not years. However, the bargaining power in the coming months will lie on the side that is most willing and able to pay the expensive price of war. This means that Ukraine’s allies, led by the United States, will face charged decisions as the fighting continues, with complex strategic dynamics – few of which are under public discussion. Looking to the future, Ukraine’s economy cannot ‘ does not support an indefinite conventional war on its own. an option, but continued regular warfare may depend on the West’s willingness to help cover the bill. If so, NATO’s determination and money will help determine the length and brutality of this war. As long as Putin believes that the Russian army and treasury can survive Ukraine, he has an incentive to launch a war of attrition. NATO can counter this incentive. The now firm commitment to pay and to continue to pay for the war could undermine Russia’s plan to make Ukraine tired, bringing an end to the fighting.

The downside, however, is that Western hesitation or ambiguity about his support could persuade Russia to turn back to that war of attrition. The United States has just allocated $ 40 billion to Ukraine. Britain added 1.3 billion pounds ($ 1.6 billion). According to the newspaper For Gorodnichenko’s numbers, it is equivalent to about six or seven months of Ukraine war bill. Will this increase the cost enough for Putin? Or should the West go further? If “taking back Ukraine at all costs” is a simple and safe option, Peace may exert a gravitational force, but that does not mean that nothing escapes its orbit. If Russia mistrusts the West, misunderstands the threat or is in any case ideologically inclined to intervene, the struggle can be long and intense. NATO may find itself Supporting another war forever, a war with a small but frightening risk of escalation between NATO and Russia. We need to support arms, financial aid and debt relief for Ukraine in this time of need, but let’s be clear about what it means to be a firm and committed signal This means that after six or seven months from now, if he does not not See Putin, the unity and passion of the West can not fade. If we evade, the highest cost of the ongoing war will be borne by the Ukrainians. “

Leave a Comment