By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Ukrainian commander-in-chief and current Ambassador to the U.K., Valerii Zaluzhnyi, has cautioned that the conflict could extend until 2034 if a ceasefire is attempted without bolstering Ukraine’s defenses. He observed a shift in Russia’s strategy, emphasizing attrition targeting both military and civilians, replacing direct assaults. Zaluzhnyi stressed the need for Ukraine to reform its defense approach and mobilization to counter Russia’s exploitation of vulnerabilities. These remarks follow peace talks that yielded no breakthroughs, as Russia remains committed to the war until the West concedes to its terms, indicating a protracted conflict ahead.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s ex-top general Zaluzhnyi warns war with Russia could last until 2034. That’s a sobering thought, isn’t it? The prospect of a conflict dragging on for another decade, with no clear end in sight, is something that should give everyone pause. When such a prominent figure, a former top general, issues such a warning, it’s not something to be taken lightly. It forces us to confront the difficult realities of the situation and consider the long-term implications.
The discussion, and the alarm it sets off, isn’t just about the physical duration of the conflict but the underlying factors that could be driving this seemingly endless war. The demographics of both Ukraine and Russia become significant points of consideration. The availability of resources, the willingness to continue fighting, and the internal pressures within each country all play a part in shaping the war’s longevity. The fact that Putin might remain in power for several more years, as well as the ingrained propaganda and promises of a “great” empire, paints a complex picture.
There’s also the geopolitical dimension to consider. The failure of NATO to reach a consensus on intervention, and the ongoing trade relations some countries maintain with Russia, are cited as factors that are helping to prolong the conflict. The potential for a “North Korea 2.0” scenario, with Russia isolated and entrenched, further reinforces the sense of a protracted struggle. The comparison to the setting in the Metro 2033 and 2034 books underscores the potential for a bleak future, a world ravaged by conflict and defined by survival.
The discussion touches on the military strategy as well, with points raised on both sides of the conflict. Russia’s willingness to sacrifice soldiers, the use of outdated tactics reminiscent of World War II, and the internal demoralization within the Russian ranks are all issues highlighted. On the other hand, the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, the minefields, and the controversial actions involving the Nord Stream 2 pipeline also raises questions about certain military decisions. The core question revolves around how one side can maintain the conflict.
The financial and economic aspect also casts a shadow over the future. Concerns are raised about Russia’s economic stability, the impact of sanctions, and the ability to continue funding the war effort. The potential for Russia to replace its native population with foreign immigrants, while raising ethical concerns, could also change the nature of the country itself. The costs of the war, both financial and human, will no doubt be a burden for generations to come, especially for America, which is subsidizing the war. The emotional and spiritual cost is also very high.
Several proposals are put forward to change this picture. The idea of Ukraine triggering a disproportionate response from Russia, such as a tactical nuclear strike, raises the frightening specter of escalation. Similarly, the suggestion of NATO intervention, while potentially decisive, also carries the risk of expanding the conflict or even triggering nuclear warfare. The consensus points toward a need for sustained support for Ukraine and, more importantly, a need to focus on increasing Russian losses. Drone attacks inside each country and self protection systems need to be developed.
There are criticisms of baseless claims and the need for more clear-eyed analysis. The conversation emphasizes how the war could have been avoided if Putin understood its potential outcome. On the other hand, it is highlighted that NATO is a defensive alliance and has no legal standing to intervene officially, and that intervention could lead to dangerous escalation.
In this context, the ex-top general’s warning takes on even more weight. He is not just a military leader but also a strategist who clearly sees the long-term ramifications of the conflict. While there is criticism of the ex-general, there is also respect for his military accomplishments. The failure of the 2023 counteroffensive is not seen as solely his fault, and his command of the Ukrainian military, as well as his promotion of new military strategies, are praised. It is also recognized that the Russian army is not a monolithic entity, with various issues like poor equipment or morale affecting their capacity to fight. Overall, the discussion paints a complex picture that highlights the possibility of this war lasting for many years.