Divergent views on how the war might end
The lack of significant land gains in Ukraine's 2023 summer counter-offensive has sparked intensive discussions about a potential stalemate in the war, and the West's vision for its conclusion. General Valery Zaluzhny's essay in The Economist, widely interpreted as an admission that the front has stalled, has fueled these debates. Some commentators have aggressively pushed for territorial concessions as a solution, suggesting that ceding occupied territories to Russia might end the war.
Our interpretation of General Zaluzhny's essay is not of a stalemate per se, but rather a discussion of how to inject more dynamism into frontline operations. While Ukrainian forces haven't replicated the impressive territorial gains of 2022, they have made significant progress in other areas, such as diminishing the Russian Black Sea fleet's capabilities, and neutralizing Russian artillery. Moreover, Ukrainian forces continue to advance, albeit slowly, towards Tokmak, and have established a strong position on the left bank of the Dnipro River near Kherson. Although the liberation of southern Ukraine seems unlikely in 2023, reaching the Azov Sea in 2024 remains a viable goal.
The suggestion of Ukrainian territorial concessions is viewed as unrealistic, and potentially destabilizing. The Ukrainian public is not prepared to accept such concessions, and any politician proposing this approach would likely face severe political repercussions. The gradual reduction of military and financial support from the West appears to be the current trend, but this is likely to alter the nature of the war rather than end it. Russia shows no signs of halting its aggression, and any ceasefire would likely be used as an opportunity to regroup and launch further attacks. Ukrainians understand this dynamic, and would perceive any truce with Russia, especially one involving territorial concessions, as a precursor to an even more devastating future war.
Now read on...
Register to sample a report