By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen believes Russia is unwilling to negotiate peace, with Vladimir Putin’s strategy focused on outlasting Western support for Ukraine. Frederiksen, speaking after the Coalition of the Willing meeting in London, emphasized that allies will instead intensify their backing of Kyiv and pressure Moscow. The coalition agreed on coordinated measures, including long-term financial support for Ukraine’s defense, boosting its defense industry, and imposing further sanctions. Frederiksen stated that despite Russia’s aggression and hybrid warfare, the allies remain united in their commitment to supporting Ukraine.
Read the original article here
The Danish PM’s perspective, as I gather it, centers on the crux of the current geopolitical standoff: Putin’s strategy, which boils down to waiting for the West to buckle. But, and this is the core of the matter, it’s a strategy doomed to fail. Historically, economically, and fundamentally, the West, or at least the united front against Russian aggression, isn’t prone to giving up. It’s like a game of chicken where one side believes the other will flinch, but the opposite holds true.
Putin, and perhaps some of his sympathizers, seem to operate under a misperception. They view the West, with its emphasis on inclusivity, diversity, and liberal values, as weak and easily exhausted. They might believe that a military that embraces a diverse range of people or prioritizes values like empathy and restraint is somehow less formidable. This is a crucial miscalculation. The West may not embrace warmongering, but that’s not the same as weakness. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the West’s strength and resolve.
The whole scenario often gets framed as a waiting game. The West waits for the Russian economy to falter, while Russia hopes for the West to lose interest or become internally divided. Ukraine’s position is critical in this equation. They are fighting for their very existence, which makes giving up an impossibility. The economic strain is undeniable, with Ukraine facing significant financial challenges, but the will to fight persists. The war is not a situation that can be chosen; it is the ground that is vanishing beneath the Russians’ feet.
The core of this conflict, it seems, is a race of attrition, where the side that endures the longest prevails. The West’s advantage isn’t a quick victory, but the capacity to sustain the pressure for an extended period. Meanwhile, Russia’s own economic trajectory appears to be on a downward spiral, accelerated by the war. The goal, for the collective West, is to make this war unsustainable for Russia.
This isn’t to say that the West wants the war to drag on indefinitely. The inconvenient truth, perhaps, is that a quick victory for Ukraine isn’t the primary strategic objective. The priority is to exhaust Russia’s resources and cripple its war-making capabilities. While the war continues, Russia is weakened, and it will be in a much worse position if and when it does ultimately lose.
The underlying dynamics are complex. The West has never provided enough support for a decisive Ukrainian victory, but it has also not embraced any compromise that could end the conflict on acceptable terms. The reasons behind this are multifaceted, but most likely the rationale boils down to the strategic considerations of long term stability. Pushing Russia to retreat now risks them building a stronger force in the future, if they are given time to rebuild.
The notion that the West is purposefully prolonging the conflict is a misrepresentation. The goal is to end the war on favorable terms for Ukraine as soon as possible, in the most achievable and realistic way. The strategic focus is on weakening Russia and supporting Ukraine, not on a drawn-out, aimless conflict.