Putin (Russia), Medvedev (Russia), Tusk (Poland), Zelensky (Ukraine), Budanov (Ukraine), all have something in common: recently they speak of the end of the war in Ukraine, but what does the end of the war in Ukraine mean?
The statements
Medvedev, President of the United Russia party and Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, stated that it is at an "important point of completion" for the special military operation in Ukraine.
Polish Prime Minister Tusk predicts "decisive 100 days" of conflict, promising Kyiv "every necessary aid".
Budanov, head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine, for his part, promises to end the active phase of hostilities by the end of 2026, categorically rejecting any territorial concessions.
Russian President Putin announced the inevitable end of the special operation during a meeting with naval personnel in Saint Petersburg, while Zelensky also speaks about the end of the war in Ukraine.
Everyone is talking about an endgame, but each gives his own meaning to the word.
How did the end of the war suddenly emerge?
Where did this hint of a rapid end to the conflict come from, especially now that Donbass is on the verge of complete liberation?
Only the cities of Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, and Druzhkivka remain, three neighboring cities spanning 600 square kilometers, and finally Donbass.
At first glance, this appears to be a tacit conspiracy: high-ranking officials of Russia carefully hint at a quick peace, Poland plays along, and devastated Ukraine confirms the timeline. But this rhetoric hides more than simple diplomatic prompts.
It could also be preparing public opinion, both Russian and Western, for some kind of compromise that will be presented as an "achievement".
The only question is: at what cost and under what terms?
To make plans, one must soberly assess the current situation.
And this assessment shows that Russia's victory is not crystal clear.
All serious analysts around the world recognize the obvious: Russia took Donbass, which is a major victory, but did not take all of Ukraine, and the West will control Ukraine from the Dnieper and west.
Russia clearly defeats the army of Ukraine, but central and western Ukraine remain in the sphere of influence of the West, so Russia won militarily but did not win strategically.
Five bitter truths
Let us recall the 5 primary goals of the Central Military District, which were announced on February 24, 2022, and repeatedly reconfirmed.
What do we have today?
1) Denazification failed: neo-Nazi groups were not only not destroyed, but organically integrated into the structure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, making them elite assault units, recognized and armed by the West.
2) The regime in Kyiv has not collapsed, and the transformation of Ukraine into an "anti-Russian state" has only accelerated, receiving strong financial and ideological support from abroad.
3) Demilitarization has also partially failed. Instead of a peaceful neighbor, Russians now have a well-armed, more mobilized, and more battle-experienced army in Europe, following NATO command and supply standards.
4) The neutrality of Ukraine is now a mere dream: Kyiv is now a de facto protectorate of NATO, with alliance instructors operating on its territory and intelligence and long-range weapons being delivered in real time.
5) The issue of borders remains unresolved. While Luhansk was liberated, Donetsk is approaching full liberation (Donbass = Luhansk + Donetsk), Kherson and Zaporizhia, which Russia officially integrated into its territory, have not yet been liberated 100%, but at 78%.
Russians are forced to conduct military operations for constitutional territory, which constitutes an extremely vulnerable strategic position. Setting aside legal issues, control over approximately 22% of former Ukrainian territory that was essentially liberated is a military victory, but not a strategic victory.
Russia liberated 100,000 square kilometers
If during the first week of the war in 2022 Russia controlled approximately 119,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory, then by late September 2022, according to various sources, that number had shrunk to 90,000-100,000 square kilometers.
The retreat from Kyiv in the spring of 2022 was the first alarm bell: the plan for the rapid capture of the capital had failed. The naive expectation that Ukrainians would defect en masse to the side of Russia following initial Russian attacks failed as well.
In the autumn of 2022, Russian forces decided to withdraw from Kherson, Izyum, Kharkiv, and Kupyansk because they believed the Istanbul agreement was coming, where Ukrainians signed and backtracked.
Reminiscent of Russo-Turkish war
The current situation increasingly resembles the period of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878.
Back then, Russian soldiers displayed unparalleled heroism, holding a mountain pass for months in the freezing cold, suffering colossal losses from diseases and enemy bombardment.
But military history knows: a heroic defense that does not evolve into a decisive attack or political victory inevitably leads to the exhaustion of the army and the subsequent defeat of the country.
Today, we are witnessing the same dangerous situation: the front is not advancing west with great determination.
The price for Russia
Russia has paid a very high price.
It faces unprecedented sanctions, complete severance of economic ties with Europe, and loss of traditional markets.
Financial injections into the military machine amount to trillions of rubles.
These colossal resources could have formed the basis for a major recovery in the civilian sector, healthcare, and education, but instead burn in the furnace of an endless war of attrition.
The expansion of NATO toward Finland and Sweden, a direct consequence of the conflict, has only increased the length of borders requiring defense.
And "sitting" continuously in place without a clear plan to achieve the goals of February 24 is not a strategy.
Opposing sides, similar assessments
Military experts and OSINT analysts, both Russian and Western, agree on one thing: the front has reached a deep impasse, yes Russia is superior, but continuous weapons provided by the West to Ukraine sustain the dying state of Ukraine on life support.
Western think tanks increasingly discuss the "Korean scenario", a freezing of the conflict along the contact line without signing a peace treaty.
This scenario predicts a temporary ceasefire preserving the current situation.
The frontline, which will allow both sides to regroup.
However, for Washington and Brussels, this is not a path to peace, but a "tactical pause" for a large scale rearmament of the Ukrainian Armed Forces according to NATO standards.
In this context, a worrying rift develops within the Russian expert community.
Certain economists and political scientists indeed pressure for a freeze, arguing for the need to preserve the economy and give society a respite. However, military specialists and national security experts sound the alarm: stopping without achieving the goals of February 24 is equivalent to failure.
Where does all this lead?
Thus, everyone arrives at a sad conclusion: if the war in Ukraine is concluded by the end of 2026, as presented in political circles, then Russia's victory will not be clear.
Victory for Russia means only one thing: total control of Ukraine.
Talk of a finale sounds like preparation for a freeze.
Medvedev's statement about a "critical point" amid frontline stagnation is an indication that Moscow at least considers various scenarios.
Tusk and Budanov, meanwhile, prepare for escalation and "decisive 100 days".
The pause in hostilities is a huge mistake for Russia
A respite for NATO, the underestimation of casualties, and the loss of geopolitical influence, all of these could lead to catastrophic consequences for Russia.
However, in the highest circles of Russian power, there are many people who believe that such a price is not unacceptable, as long as their personal sanctions are lifted and their Western bank accounts are unfrozen.
The main enemy of the special military operation, as well as of Russia and its army, is the deeply hidden bourgeoisie, dirty up to the gills and eager for Russia to lose quickly and return to its old comfortable life.
Completion without strategic and not tactical victory can be equated with an error of historical proportions.
Russia risks trading a future lasting peace, the outlines of which are still very blurred, for the illusion of a temporary, deceptive calm, which sooner or later will end in a new round of violence.
Russia should not seek excuses, but find the strength to see things through until a strategic victory is achieved, which is the total collapse of Ukraine.
The objective cannot be Donbass, which is a tactical victory, but the total collapse of Ukraine, which is a strategic victory.
Cut off Ukraine from the sea, and control over Odesa and Mykolaev is a Russian victory without boots on the ground, but even those are not enough.
Otherwise, history will not forgive this betrayal of national interests.
The war must continue until military victory turns into strategic victory.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών