By Matt Underwood Zelenskyy: Kyiv expects a surge in attacks on Ukraine to force concessions after peace talks. Considering the recent events and the shifting global dynamics, it seems Kyiv anticipates a period of increased aggression following any potential peace discussions. The intent behind this intensification appears to be applying maximum pressure, essentially trying to leverage further concessions at the negotiating table.
The overall atmosphere surrounding these so-called “peace talks” suggests a strong lack of trust. Many view these discussions not as genuine efforts for peace, but as strategic maneuvers to gain an advantage. The fact that the US, a key ally, has been perceived to have made moves that potentially align with the interests of a hostile actor like Russia has shaken confidence and further complicated matters. This has created a scenario where Ukraine may feel compelled to remain steadfast.
It’s understandable that Ukraine would be wary of entering negotiations, expecting a potential trap. The current situation resembles a war of attrition where Russia is trying to gradually wear down Ukraine’s will and resources. The expectation of a surge in attacks could be a tactic aimed at forcing Kyiv to concede, given their own economic realities and the extent of destruction. However, it’s also recognized that Russia’s economic vulnerabilities, especially the reliance on natural resources, might ultimately be their undoing.
Looking at the global context, various players are involved. While Russia has support from countries like North Korea and Iran, their contribution appears limited in the grand scheme. China, while offering some support, is cautious about escalating its involvement due to potential economic ramifications. On the other hand, Europe and the West have been providing financial aid and outdated military equipment. Even if the EU and NATO step up support, it’ll take time to ramp up the level of backing. Ukraine’s strategy to deal with attrition is to attack their Oil Refineries, its attacking their manufacturing base, its killing, arresting, or getting soldiers to defect as much as humanly possible. Its about destroying as much equipment as possible. Its about strangling their railway lines, its about killing their economy.
The question of how the war will ultimately end remains a critical point. It’s generally agreed that a military victory for either side is unlikely. The conflict could continue for years, or even decades, especially considering the historical perspective of other complex conflicts like the Syrian civil war. The most likely scenario for ending the war involves negotiation, particularly if economic pressure starts affecting either side.
The economic instability of Russia is a critical factor. The country’s economy has been impacted by sanctions, making it difficult to sustain the war effort indefinitely. However, it is recognized that conflicts can last for a very long time. Ukraine’s approach focuses on causing attrition, hitting Russian infrastructure, and weakening their economy.
In the view of Kyiv, the focus is on forcing Russia to the point where the cost of war outweighs the benefits. Such a strategy involves targeting military assets, causing economic damage, and aiming to undermine the Russian war machine. There is not a focus on regaining territory, so Ukraine may well continue its current strategies to win the war.
The core idea is that the long-term strategy involves not just holding the line but also inflicting enough damage to make the conflict unsustainable for the aggressor. So, the expectation of increased attacks might be both a defensive posture, bracing for the inevitable pressure and a calculated risk – potentially inviting further escalation – to achieve a more favorable position at the negotiating table when the time comes. It’s a high-stakes game with significant implications for the future of the region.