Stalemate in Ukraine – and doubt is creeping in

Bleak outlook for Ukraine
The Ukraine is losing manpower faster than it can afford in relation to Russia, meaning that it will have to resort less enthusiastic fighters, from older age groups, or have to introduce draft. Even so it will never be able to compete with Russian manpower resources.
Ukraine had put their faith into the supply of advanced weapons like HIMARS, drones German and U.S. tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, long range airborne missiles like Storm Shadows/SCALPs and an inexhaustible supply of 155 mm artillery shells from Western armouries, a supply that turned out to exhaustible.

Nothing has been able to break the stalemate. And so today Ukraine is attempting to find up to 500,000 men to fill the ranks of its army, while clamouring for even more advanced weapons like Germany’s Taurus missiles and U.S. A-10 ground-attack aircraft.
The almost enthusiastic initial Western support seems to be waning here and there. Most importantly in the U.S. where public support is declining, as evidenced by recent polls.
President Biden have asked Congress for $61 billion in military to top up Kyiv’s arms and ammunition lifeline — along with another $14 billion for Israel, but has not got anything yet. Republicans in the U.S. Congress seem to focus more on the internal border problems in the U.S. than the proxy war in Ukraine. Senator John Cormyn arguing that the U.S. own security cannot come second to the security of countries like Ukraine and Israel. The disagreement in Congress is the holding up critical support for Ukraine. Resulting in another kind of stalemate for Ukraine.
In the horizon there is the looming presidential election in the U.S. where there is a fear that the aging Biden might lose to a Donald Trump, who certainly does not seem eager to continue a U.S. proxy against Russia in Ukraine.
The Israeli war against Hamas and the risk of a much larger Middle East conflagration is also turning the focus away from Ukraine.
In Europe the promise of a 50 billion Euro EU-aid package for the next years is being held up by a Hungary’s Orban, although ideas for circumventing the Hungarian resistance by the rest of the EU countries are circulated.
In some European countries the attraction of parties with a sceptical view of the support for Ukraine is growing and their success at coming elections would be certain to put support for Ukraine in jeopardy.
After Slovakia’s September election, the new Prime Minister Robert Fico, in November rejected the previous governments plan to donate weapons to Ukraine. “Fico ran a campaign criticising Western military support for Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, and backs pushing for peace talks, a line similar to Hungary's leader Viktor Orban but rejected by Kyiv.” (Reuters November 8 2023).
And the rest of the world? Would seem to be mostly annoyed with the West’s focus on Ukraine, eyeing other World problems more important to them.

Irate Zelensky venting his frustration
On January 1st 2024 the Economist published an interview with an angry Zelensky, “exasperated by the wobbles of some of his allies, as well as a sense of detachment among some of his compatriots. And he wants you to know it.” In the interview he comes out fighting, arguing that the Russians are not winning the war, as Russia is losing thousands of soldiers and having no success in breaking the existing stalemate in Ukraine, while the Ukraine has succeeded in pushing back the Russians fleet in the Black Sea, making it possible for Ukraine to continue exporting millions of tons of grain.
But Zelensky must surely know that killing and maiming thousands of Russia soldiers, while losing many of their own, keeping open a land hugging shipping route, and hitting Crimea with long range missile can only be seen as needlesticks, not winning the war.

In his attempt to keep up the waning support of the West he is trying to scare the West with a dire warning in the Economist interview: “Giving us money or giving us weapons, you support yourself. You save your children, not ours,” he warns bleakly. If Russia is allowed to take Ukrainian children, “they will take other children”. If Russia violates the rights of Ukrainians, “it will violate the rights in the world”. If Ukraine loses, warns Mr Zelensky, Mr Putin will bring his wars closer to the West. “Putin feels weakness like an animal, because he is an animal. He senses blood, he senses his strength. And he will eat you for dinner with all your EU, NATO, freedom, and democracy.” (The Economist January 1, 2024).
 Zelensky again tried to scare the West into supporting Ukraine in his speech at the World Economic Forum on January 16, 2024. “We all in the free world – exist as long as we can defend ourselves. If anyone thinks this is only about Ukraine, they’re fundamentally mistaken. Possible directions and even timeline of a new Russian aggression beyond Ukraine become more and more obvious. Let me ask very honestly: which European nation today can provide a combat ready army on par with ours, holding back Russia? And how many men and women are your nations ready to send to defend another state, another nation?”

NATO crying wolf – but says Russia is failing
At meeting with Slovakia’s recalcitrant Prime Minister Fico, NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg, voiced a dire warning similar to Zelensky’s: “If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is real risk that his aggression will not end there, … Our support is not charity. It is an investment in our security” (Politico, December 14, 2023)
Latvia’s foreign minister, Krišjānis Kariņš, also cried wolf, when telling the Financial Times that Russia is driven by an imperialistic-fuelled ideology … Russia will not stop, Russia can only be stopped. Stopping Russia in Ukraine does not mean that it is over. It simply means we will have to continue. (FT, January 5 2024).
In a letter to the new House Speaker, Michael Johnson, he was been warned that “cutting off the flow of U.S. weapons and equipment will kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories.” (CNN December 5, 2023).
It would seem that “The wolf is coming” argument has become the rallying cry for standing with Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting our fight, if they lose, we lose, in the sense that Putin’s Russia will continue his waring aggression towards other countries in Europe.
In an article in Foreign Affairs Fogh Rasmussen and Yermak argues “If military support for Ukraine falters, the consequences will be dire for Europe and the rest of the world. If Putin is allowed to achieve any of his goals in Ukraine, he will not stop there. Russia will threaten more of its neighbors, from Moldova to the Baltic states, and destabilize the globe. Other regional and global powers will take note of his success and use similar tactics to achieve their aims. A Ukrainian defeat would mark the start of the unravelling of the international system.” (Foreign Affairs, January 1 ,2024).
The wolf warning has even been used by U.S. defence Secretary Lloyd Austin in a secret briefing in Congress. Lloyd Austin is said to have argued that if Ukraine did not get the $61 billion in support that Biden is seeking from Congress, it would be very likely that U.S. GIs in Europe would be fighting Russia. (Stephen Bryen in Asia times).
Recently even the Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces, Michael Bydén warned “Alla svenskar måste vara redo för krig” (Alle Swedes must be ready for war), of cause talking about the threat from Russia.
Many are crying wolf, but apparently not really believing own dire warnings. At NATO’s November meeting of ministers of foreign affairs, Stoltenberg argued, almost like Zelensky, that Ukraine had had a big win: “This year, they continue to inflict heavy losses on Russia. Ukraine has recaptured 50 percent of the territory that Russia originally seized. In the Black Sea, the Ukrainians have pushed back the Russian fleet, and established routes for grain exports – bolstering global food security. Most importantly, Ukraine has prevailed as a sovereign, independent, democratic nation. This is a major achievement – a big win.” (nato.int).
Stoltenberg also saw a dire outlook for Russia: “Ukraine has moved forward, Russia has fallen backward. It is now weaker politically, militarily, and economically. Politically, Russia is losing influence in its near abroad. Not only in Ukraine, but in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia is also becoming much more dependent on China. … Economically, Russia is also under pressure. Oil and gas revenues are dropping. Russian banking assets are under sanctions.”
It certainly looks as if neither NATO nor Zelensky believe in their own wolf warnings, when at the same time they assert that Russia is getting weaker politically, militarily, and economically. If Russia is getting so much weaker it cannot to be a “wolf” threatening the rest of Europe. Meaning that “the wolf is coming “warnings are really not believable. But why cry wolf then? Is this just cynical ruse to convince the doubters in Europe and the U.S. that upholding and even escalating military support of Ukraine is necessary to prevent the apparently weakened Russian wolf to attack us, meaning Western Europe?
If this is what those crying wolf want the rest of us to believe, their ruse is not very convincing. Apparently not even to themselves. Just listen to Stoltenberg when he was asked about F16 deliveries to Ukraine. “I think we need to now realize that there is not a silver bullet, not a single system that by itself will change fundamentally the situation on the battlefield… I welcome of course the delivery of modern battle tanks, HIMARS, cruise missiles, and advanced air defence systems and also the delivery of F-16’s. But again, there is no silver bullet. There's no single system that fundamentally would change the situational battlefield by itself.” But apparently neither is the combined effect of all these weapon systems.

All those crying wolf seem to have an almost schizophrenic view of the proxy war in Ukraine involving delusions (false beliefs), hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that don’t exist), and disorganized thinking and speech. Ukraine has achieved big wins, while getting mired in a stalemate. Russia is down at its heels but would aggressively attack us in Western Europe, if it is not losing the war in Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine with more and more advanced weapons has not provided Ukraine with a decisive advantage in the war, but more weapons might, or perhaps not.

The doubt of generals
On November 9, 2022 the General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, was speaking at the Economic Club of New York. Here are some of his comments based upon Twitter notes from a Washington Post journalist (@DanLamothe).
Milley asked: Is the time right to consider diplomacy in Ukraine?
Milley says "there has to be mutual recognition" that a true military win is not achievable.
Draws comparison to World War I, where victory was not achievable after 1914. Millions more killed in next few years.
Milley, asked if the time is right for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, said that will require both sides to believe that a full military victory is not achievable. The winter months, when fighting will slow a bit, create an opportunity to do so.
When later asked about these comments at a meeting of “The Ukrainian Defense Contact Group”, he was somewhat more hesitant, perhaps realising that his words might not fit the prevailing more belligerent attitude of his political chiefs. He said: “In terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they define or what the claim is Crimea, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily. Politically, there may be a political solution where, politically, the Russians withdraw, that's possible. You want to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia right now is on its back. … So, you want to negotiate at a time when you're at your strength and your opponent is at weakness. And it's possible, maybe that there'll be a political solution. All I'm -- all I'm saying is there's a possibility for it. That's all I'm saying.”
In April 2023 Polish armed forces Chief of General Staff, Rajmund Andrzejczak said: “When I look at the conflict in Ukraine, I mainly see it through these political lenses, and unfortunately it does not look good,” he stated. This was primarily on the basis that there was “nothing” to indicate Russia would be unable to sustain its war effort, and that Western economic warfare efforts had failed to prevent this” (Military Watch Magazine).
In November 2023 an interview with General Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, showed that he has reached conclusion reflecting General Miley’s. In the Economist interview he, like Milley, was reminded of the stalemate in the First World War, saying: “Just like in the first world war we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate … There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough” (Economist November 4, 2023).He said that the West has been reluctant to provide Ukraine with its most advanced weapons, making it possible for the Russians build the defences that led to the unsuccessful Ukrainian summer offensive. Deliveries of F16 fighter jets will not help, as the Russians have enhanced their air defences in the meantime.
Experiencing the recent stalemate, the general does not think that a technical breakthrough that would provide Ukraine with the decisive capability to achieve victory will be around the corner. Ukraine may thus be stuck in a long and indecisive war, although he also insists that at the moment there is no alternative. “The biggest risk of an attritional trench war is that it can drag on for years and wear down the Ukrainian state.” Adding “sooner or later we are going to find that we simply don’t have enough people to fight” (Economist November 4, 2023).

The scepticism of the few
Among U.S. politicians arguing against continuing the support for Ukraine is the Republican senator Vance, who also noticed General Zaluczhny’s bleak view of the situation in Ukraine, leading him to argue: “Zelenkyy’s war aims are not consistent with reality, and you have some of his inner circle pushing back,” he told reporters at the Capitol on Thursday. “This was always going to end with Russia controlling some Ukrainian territory and a negotiated settlement. I’ve been saying it for a year. It was obvious to anybody who paid attention to realities on the ground.”
Then of course there is Hungary’s Orban, who has been a sceptic since the start of the war, deciding not to support Ukraine with weapons. Now he is saying: “Today everybody knows but they do not dare to say it out loud, that this strategy has failed. It’s obvious that this will not work... the Ukrainians will not win on the front line …adding that a plan B was needed.” (rferl.org, October 27, 2023).
Orban has been decried as a “Putin Versteher” (one who follows Putin’s view) by his fellow EU partners, but he may actually have a wider and longer ranging strategic view of the situation than his European colleagues. Orban may have the not unreasonable view that it would be a dangerous mistake for a Europe with a declining population and declining influence in the World to make Russia an enemy. Russia would orientate itself towards an Asia, that will have a dominant position in the World. Thus, he is implicitly arguing for some sort of accommodation with Russia, even to the detriment of Ukraine.
In Germany the AFD party, which has reached 20 per cent in polls, are also decried as “Putin Verstehers,” as they are arguing against the proxy war in Ukraine. They have even put forward a peace plan for Ukraine in the German Bundestag, but is has been denigrated by the other parties. With Green party politician Trittin, saying “You are not for peace, you prefer to act as propaganda dwarfs for Putin’s war propaganda … Your so-called peace plan is a completely transparent domestic political theatre.” (faz.net),

The U.S. in a bind – Forcing a stalemate peace on Ukraine or hoping for some supernatural occurrence?
“For as long as it takes” has often been the view expressed when talking about support for Ukraine. Now it may begin to sound hollow, but what are the alternatives?
The U.S. and president Biden is in a real bind. To many the prevailing opinion is that Biden’s hasty and tumultuous pull out of Afghanistan was preventable disaster. If the Biden administration was to give up their “so long as it takes” position and accept that Ukrainian goals will not be achievable, it would be seen as a much bigger disaster, and presumable lead to distrust in U.S. might and U.S. security promises. Encourage both Russia and China to take an even more belligerent attitude.The Biden bind may be especially felt in a year with an U.S. presidential election. So, what is the undiplomatic Biden administration, with its advocacy for U.S. based “Rules based order,” going to do?

What does “it” mean?
On the surface the Biden administration and their loyal European allies would seem to uphold their present “for as long as it takes position.” Continuing to escalate the support to Ukraine, crying wolf to force the allies to stand fast behind Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Although what is meant by “it”? Some kind of victory over the Russia, meaning the re-conquering of the one-fifth of Ukraine occupied by Russian forces, or meaning until Ukraine realizes themselves that they are in hopeless stalemate and agree to trade land for peace, with some kind of guaranties for what is remaining of Ukraine.

Escalation with no end in sight
To the decisionmakers crying wolf it seems, at least in public, that there is no other alternative for the West than continuing to escalate the support for Ukraine. Just listen to national Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, who in December warned “We’re running out of money, and we are nearly out of time, … A vote against supporting Ukraine is a vote to improve (Vladimir) Putin’s strategic position.
Even former peace advocating parties like the German Green Party is suddenly enthusiastically supporting war in Ukraine, At the moment demanding that Germany is sending advanced Taurus long-range stand-off missiles to Ukraine. Taurus would allow Ukraine to strike goals in Crimea like the Kerch Bridge and goals in Russia itself. This may also explain Chancellor Scholtz’s hesitant attitude, as this would mean that German weapons would once more be striking Russian soldiers.
In a strange twist of the arguments for more weapons for Ukraine, the Biden administration is subtly changing the message on support for Ukraine. Instead of just having a message supporting “The rule based (western) order” and democracy in Ukraine, the message now used to persuade doubters in Congress, is that Ukraine support is to the material advantage for the U.S.
Biden: “Let me be clear about something. We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores, our own stockpiles with new equipment… Equipment that defends America and is made in America. Patriot missiles for air defense batteries, made in Arizona. Artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas. And so much more, … You know, just as in World War II, today patriotic American workers are building the arsenal of democracy and serving the cause of freedom.”
Yes, and supporting the U.S. armament industry and a growing workforce in those industries. So, in fact support for Ukraine means production of more weapons and presumably more weapons development in the U.S., preparing the U.S. for the ultimate reckoning.
What is lost in the message is that there is absolutely no guarantee that this would mean that Ukraine could win the proxy war on U.S.’s behalf. Instead, it would mean spiralling escalation, and the risk of even more confrontation with Russia, with the ultimate danger of some mishap/accident/provocation that would involve NATO directly in a war with Russia.

Hoping for a miracle or perhaps supernatural occurrence?
If those crying wolf really believed that own cries, one would expect the West to continue to supporting and escalating to military support for Ukraine- Sooner or later giving in to Zelensky’s constant clamouring for more advanced weapons. Perhaps hoping for some kind of miracle or a supernatural occurrence that would lead to a Russian defeat. Like the demise of president Putin and some of his closest supporters, a miraculous uprising amongst Russian troops leading them to lay down their weapons, or some kind supernatural disaster striking Russia itself.Hoping for something like this to happen would represent magical thinking by Western decisionmakers, and certainly be the stupidest approach to end the War in Ukraine. Instead of a miracle, this approach would sooner lead to disaster or an immense catastrophe. Say a break-down of Ukrainian defences, which of course would be a disaster.
In order to prevent this the present undiplomatic U.S. administration, and the naïve but belligerent lesser allies, might feel tempted to put boots on the ground from NATO, which would result in all-out war between Russia and NATO, with little hope that NATO would be winning without risking nuclear exchanges which of cause would result in a catastrop he and immense suffering.

Shift strategy to prepare for negotiations
Perhaps even most simple-minded politicians eager to show their support for the spotless clean “democratic” Ukraine and their belligerence towards Russia, are beginning to realize that Ukraine cannot win the war in the sense that Zelensky is demanding. But it is one thing to realize the futility and danger of a continued escalation. It is something else to find a way out of the present quagmire. Although if different US. Media sources are to be believed the Biden administration may quietly be shifting its strategy on Ukraine.
According to Politico the U.S. may be promoting a strategy where the focus would shift from supporting the idea a of renewed Ukrainian offensive to force the Russians back, to a defensive strategy conserving men and material. This would involve building strong defensive lines against the Russian attacks. “Bolstering air defence systems and building fortifications, razor wire obstructions and anti-tank obstacles and ditches along Ukraine’s northern border with Belarus” according to official sources (Politico December 27, 2023).
They may finally be realizing that “As long as it takes…” and “Any decisions about negotiations are up to Ukraine” are not realistic positions. It would mean that the Biden administration is more or less confining their strategy to boosting Ukraine’s ability to hold on in the present stalemate, in order give Ukraine – and the U.S. the strongest possible hand for the truce or peace negotiations that must take place sooner or later. One may guess that the U.S. already has begun secret talks with Ukraine about what might be acceptable terms in peace negotiations with Russia.

Forcing Ukraine to accept some kind of truce
While realism may be creeping in in parts of the West, it stills looks as if Zelensky is striving for the ultimate goal of pushing Russia back from all Ukrainian land. Constantly trying to scare the West, in order to support his clamouring for more advanced weapons, and even more unrealistic demands like “membership now” of NATO and rapid membership of the EU.
In a recent book by Franklin Foer, it is asserted that Zelensky “bombed” the first meeting with President Biden in the White House. Bombing presumable meaning that Zelensky was interrupting and irritating President Biden with his demands. In fact, Zelensky is almost constantly “bombing” the West, with blue sky demands that no one in the West would be able to fulfil, except perhaps those clamouring for direct war with Russia to bring it down once and for all.
In absolute contrast there are now voices, arguing that the only way forward is that a more and more desperate and unreasonable Zelensky must go. In order to have a chance for some kind of truce or peace in Ukraine.
Shouldn’t we at least demand some sort idea of what the West aims to achieve, instead of leaving it to Zelensky to decide what the West wants? In all seriousness, will Europe really leave it to Zelensky and a vengeful Biden to decide to escalate the proxy war against Russia and decide the conditions for making peace with Russia?
Is Ukraine worth it? A question that really would irk moralistic proponents of giving Ukraine everything they demand. One might even ask, is it worth it for Ukraine itself? Losing more than 100.000 dead or wounded? And be subject to enormous destruction everywhere? Will Western decision makers (not the least the Europeans) come to their senses and realise that they have to demand something from Ukraine? Readiness for truce negotiations after re-enforcing their stalemate line against Russian attacks like mentioned before, in order to start negotiations with Russia supported by U.S. and the EU. Negotiations for at the very least a truce, in order to continue diplomatic efforts to achieve some kind of peace. Or perhaps accept something one might call a “Korean solution”? Not peace, but not War either. A divided country with a DMZ (demilitarised zone). Not the best of all worlds, but some alternatives certainly sound worse and the risk is certainly there.