War in Ukraine: Why it is unlikely to end soon

Call it a special military operation, as President Putin chose to call it, or an uncalled for invasion, the war that started on February 24 has already lasted almost three months against predictions that it would last barely three days or three weeks.

With diplomatic missions of India, the US and even Israel returning to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv this week, there are signs that the capital is now relatively safe. The war indeed has moved to the east, where Russia has occupied Mariupol, a large and strategically important Ukrainian city, while Ukrainian defenders claim to have pushed back the ‘occupiers’ beyond the border in other places.

While Russian spokesmen have claimed that military objectives have been met, nobody is clear at what cost. Ukraine has accused the Russians of committing war crimes, targeting civilians and schools, having destroyed museums and gene banks, pillaging villages and cities, torturing POWs and killing children.

The Russian Ruble has however bounced back to the pre-invasion level after getting bloodied in March. While several Western companies have indeed pulled out of Russia, the sanctions do not seem to have hurt Russia as much as it was feared, what with Western Europe continuing to buy Russian natural gas.

The official social media handles of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry and other agencies indicate they expect the war to continue. President Zelinsky has also confirmed in an interview that he had turned down French President Macron’s suggestion that Ukraine cede some territory to Moscow in order to buy peace. Ceding territory, he claimed to have told Macron, was out of question. While the French President has been warning allies of the risks involved in humiliating Putin, there does not seem to be any serious effort to end the war. Indeed the Ukrainians have been dropping broad hints that the most decisive stage of the war will be reached in the second half of August. That is when it apparently expects the full complement of Western arms and ammunition to become operational.

Moscow meanwhile is reported to be mulling a partial mobilisation of its reserves after suffering more than expected losses in the conflict.

In this back drop it came as a surprise to most observers when Russian State TV, Rossia 1, broadcast a discussion during which a Russian defence columnist claimed that Russia had been geopolitically isolated, that essentially “the whole world is against us”. When the anchor testily reminded him that both China and India were favourably inclined towards Moscow, he retorted, “their support to us is hardly unconditional”.

The expert, Mikhail Khodaryonok, a retired Colonel and military commentator, warned that Russia should not be lulled by the narrative that there was panic in Ukrainian ranks, that there are desertions among them and allegations that they were running out of supplies. “ To put it mildly, this is not true,” said Khodarnoyok while admitting that Russia had indeed taken POWs and that there might have been individual cases of desertion.

He went on to assert that there was no reason to disbelieve Ukrainian claims that it was arming a million soldiers. “We need to view this as a reality for the coming months and the situation for us will frankly get worse”, he added.

The discussion briefly turned towards professionalism in the two armies, with the anchor suggesting that Ukrainian defenders were a rag tag army of amateurs. Khodornoyok grimly said that it would not be right to undermine the morale of an army fighting to defend their country. It was incorrect to suggest that a “contractual army” on state rolls alone could be professional. Battles were ultimately worn by the level of motivation among soldiers, he repeated.

While the other talking heads in the 60-minute show repeated Kremlin’s official position that the conflict was triggered to ward off a potential attack by Ukraine and that Russia was left with no choice, the former Colonel was clearly not impressed. Replenishing Russia’s military arsenal would be neither fast nor easy, he asserted, and it would become increasingly difficult for Russia’s outdated weaponry to compete with NATO supplied weapons and equipment deployed by Ukraine.

Western analysts are puzzled by the broadcast and wonder why the known Putin critic was invited to the show and why the broadcast was allowed to air. Some analysts felt that Khodornoyok posed no threat to Putin and hence his views were not worth taking seriously by the Kremlin. Others however speculated that the unusual dissent was possibly allowed on air because Putin’s position has weakened following his Ukrainian operation, which many have started believing was a misadventure. Khodornoyok would have the backing of some powerful sections in the kremlin, they speculated.

This is not however the first time that President Putin’s push in Ukraine is being questioned within Russia. In January the website of the All Russian Officers’ Assembly carried an open letter from its chairperson, retired General Leonid Ivashov, which questioned the perception that NATO posed a threat to Russia’s vital interests. He went on to warn that invading Ukraine “will forever make Russians and Ukrainians mortal enemies”. Provoking a war, he added, would isolate Russia, a view now seemingly endorsed by Khodornoyok in May.

Meanwhile, western analysts recall a commentary in the Wall Street Journal by David Knight Legg last month in which he had described the Russian ‘invasion’ as an energy heist. “Taking Ukraine’s energy would give Mr. Putin the second-largest natural-gas reserves in Europe, worth more than $1 trillion at today’s prices. It would give him oil and condensate worth as much as $400 billion, and most of Ukraine’s coal—the sixth-largest reserve base in the world.” In addition, he had claimed that President Putin, no mean chess player, was looking to gain extraordinary strategic geopolitical advantage with ports on the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, putting Russia at the centre of global energy supply to the vast European and Asian markets.

Russian troops, he argued, were in April concentrated in parts of Ukraine that hold 90% of its energy resources. “They have seized the Donbas and control Luhansk and Donetsk. They are embedded along the Black Sea coast and focusing extreme pressure on Mariupol. If the fighting stopped now, Mr. Putin would control all of Ukraine’s offshore oil, its critical ports on the Azov Sea, the Kerch Strait, 80% of the Black Sea coastline, and all critical energy-processing and shipping infrastructure.”

This possibly explains why the conflict is likely to continue, why Russia will be willing to deploy more resources in the war effort and why Ukraine cannot afford to cede its territory to buy peace. Who will blink first is the question and whether Europe and NATO will force Ukraine to reach a compromise.

(This was first published in National Herald on Sunday)