Wars often erupt and persist because of the two sides’ miscalculations regarding their relative power. In the case of Ukraine, Russia blundered badly by underestimating the resolve of Ukrainians to fight and the effectiveness of NATO-supplied weaponry.
Yet Ukraine and NATO are also overestimating their capacities to defeat Russia on the battlefield. The result is a war of attrition that each side believes it will win, but that both sides will lose.
Ukraine should intensify the search for a negotiated peace of the type that was on the table in late March, but which it then abandoned following evidence of Russian atrocities in Bucha — and perhaps owing to changing perceptions of its military prospects.
The peace terms under discussion in late March called for Ukraine’s neutrality, backed by security guarantees and a timeline to address contentious issues such as the status of Crimea and the Donbas region. Russian and Ukrainian negotiators said that there was progress in the negotiations, as did the Turkish mediators.
The negotiations then collapsed after the reports from Bucha, with Ukraine’s negotiator saying: “Ukrainian society is now much more negative about any negotiation concept that concerns the Russian Federation.”
However, the case for negotiations remains urgent and overwhelming. The alternative is not Ukraine’s victory, but a devastating war of attrition. To reach an agreement, both sides need to recalibrate their expectations.
When Russia attacked Ukraine, it clearly expected a quick and easy victory. Russia vastly underestimated the upgrading of the Ukraine military following years of US, British, and other military support and training since 2014.
Moreover, Russia underestimated the extent to which NATO military technology would counter Russia’s greater number of troops. No doubt, Russia’s greatest error was to assume that the Ukrainians would not fight — or perhaps even switch sides. Yet Ukraine and its Western supporters are overestimating the chances of defeating Russia on the battlefield.
RUSSIAN RESILIENCE
The idea that the Russian army is about to collapse is wishful thinking. Russia has the military capacity to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure — such as the rail lines now under attack — and to win and hold territory in the Donbas region and on the Black Sea coast.
Ukrainians are fighting resolutely, but it is highly unlikely that they can force a Russian defeat, nor can Western financial sanctions, which are far less sweeping and effective than the governments that imposed them acknowledge. US sanctions against Venezuela, Iran, North Korea and others have not changed the politics of those regimes, and the sanctions against Russia are already falling far short of the hype with which they were introduced.
Excluding Russian banks from the SWIFT international payments system was not the “nuclear option” that many claimed. The IMF said that Russia’s economy could contract by about 8.5 percent this year — bad, but hardly catastrophic.
Moreover, the sanctions are creating serious economic consequences for the US and especially Europe. US inflation is at a 40-year high and is likely to persist because of the trillions of dollars of liquidity that had been created by the US Federal Reserve in the past few years years. At the same time, the US and European economies are slowing, perhaps even contracting, as supply chain disruptions proliferate.
US President Joe Biden’s domestic political position is weak and likely to weaken further as economic difficulties mount in the coming months. Public support for the war is also likely to diminish as the economy sours.
The Republican Party is split over the war, with the former US president Donald Trump’s faction not much interested in confronting Russia over Ukraine. Democrats, too, could increasingly resent the stagflation that is likely to cost the party its majority in one or both houses of Congress in the November midterm elections.
The adverse economic fallout from the war and sanctions could also reach dire proportions in dozens of developing countries that depend on food and energy imports. Economic dislocations in these countries are certain to lead to urgent calls worldwide to end the war and sanctions regime.
In the meantime, Ukraine continues to suffer grievously in terms of deaths, dislocation and destruction. The IMF now forecasts a 35 percent contraction of Ukraine’s economy this year, reflecting the brutal destruction of housing, factories, rail stock, energy storage and transmission capacity, and other vital infrastructure.
CUBAN CRISIS PATH
Most dangerous of all, as long as the war continues, the risk of nuclear escalation is real. If Russia’s conventional forces were actually to be pushed toward defeat, as the US is now seeking, Russia might well counter with tactical nuclear weapons.
A US or Russian aircraft could be shot down by the other side as they scramble over the Black Sea, which in turn could lead to direct military conflict. Media reports that the US has covert forces on the ground, and the US intelligence community’s disclosure that it helped Ukraine kill Russian generals and sink Russia’s Black Sea flagship, underscore the danger.
The reality of the nuclear threat means that both sides should never forgo the possibility of negotiations. That is the central lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place 60 years ago this coming October. Then-US president John F. Kennedy saved the world then by negotiating an end to the crisis — agreeing that the US would never again invade Cuba and that the US would remove its missiles from Turkey in exchange for the withdrawal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba.
That was not giving in to Soviet nuclear blackmail. That was Kennedy wisely avoiding Armageddon.
It is still possible to establish peace in Ukraine based on the parameters that were on the table at the end of March — neutrality, security guarantees, a framework for addressing Crimea and the Donbas region, and Russian withdrawal. This remains the only realistic and safe course for Ukraine, Russia and the world.
The international community would rally to such an agreement, and, for its own survival and well-being, so should Ukraine.
Jeffrey Sachs, a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, is president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, a former adviser to three UN secretaries-general and an advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry