Failure of Ukraine's Counteroffensive Sparks Debate Over What Victory Looks Like
With winter fast approaching and Ukraine's forces still stuck in what seems to be a never-ending quagmire, the West needs to decide on what the endgame in Ukraine should look like.
If the West’s goal was to leverage major military gains through the Ukrainian counteroffensive into a favourable Ukrainian negotiating position with Moscow — as suggested earlier this year by senior officials in Washington and Europe — then that scenario looks distant.
Ukraine’s highly anticipated counteroffensive nears its three-month anniversary and gains are trivial at best. Small towns and hamlets have been re-taken at the cost of thousands of men and billions of dollars worth of equipment. To make matters worse, most of the liberated territory lies miles away from Russia’s main defensive lines, meaning that the attackers have yet to breach through the first fortifications until they make substantial progress.
This, in turn, may place greater pressure over time on Western unity and resolve as the U.S. presidential election looms next year. Support for arming Ukraine has already waned over the months, heightened by higher energy costs and grain prices, which are mostly felt by the lower classes at a time when wages have stagnated. Future Western support may have to explain why supporting Ukraine in this proxy war justifies a declining standard of living for millions of people.
But, the predominant question is still when the war will end. Vladimir Putin, having apparently shored up his 23-year-old rule through the killing of Mr. Prigozhin, his only domestic rival, looks to be playing for time, hoping that disunity within the Western alliance and declining support with the general public will force politicians to the negotiating table. And it seems to be working.
Nicolas Sarkozy, former President of France (2007 - 2012), recently made headlines when he called for a negotiated settlement with Russia, clashing with the official line taken by Elysee Palace. Macron, originally one of the few senior politicians calling for diplomacy at the outset of the war, has since shifted his stance, becoming a steadfast ally of Kiev and Zelensky, pushing for higher military aid and refusing to consider re-opening communication channels with the Kremlin.
However, Sarkozy is not alone. A chorus of anti-military aid, pro-diplomacy sentiment is growing across the continent. Giuseppe Conte, former Prime Minister of Italy (2018 - 2021) and now leader of the Five Star Movement, an Italian populist party that is the 3rd largest in the parliament, has voiced concerns over the aid’s financial strain, arguing that the, “military strategy is not working”. He is joined by Sergene Royal in France, the Socialist Party’s candidate in the 2007 Presidential Election and, to this day, an influential left-winger, who denounced Ukrainian claims of Russian atrocities as “propaganda”. Even in the German SPD, the party of current chancellor Olaf Scholz, there remains a significant minority of members calling for a halt in arms deliveries. In a recent speech to the party’s conference, Scholz was heckled by attendees who labelled him as a “warmonger”.
This decline in support is also apparent with voters as well. According to an AP-NORC poll, support for continued military aid by Democrats had fallen from 71% to 63% while for Republicans it had declined from 53% to 39%. In the UK, similar trends can be observed. Support for sending additional aid and military supplies plummeted from 80% in mid-2022 to around 67% a year later.
Considering the war’s stalemate and the dwindling support from its allies, one wonders when Ukraine’s leadership will begin to even contemplate a ceasefire, let alone a negotiated settlement. Kiev seems intent on pushing ahead with the counteroffensive, regardless of the mounting casualties. Many in the Ukrainian military command seem to vehemently believe that Russia’s supply lines are close to collapsing, and that one final thrust is all that is needed to send their opponents into disarray.
But, the predictions of Russia’s eventual collapse have been voiced from the war’s onset, and it doesn’t look any closer to happening. Despite the severe economic sanctions and diplomatic ostracisation, Russia’s economy continues to perform unabated, even outperforming some Western countries like Italy and Germany, an embarrassing fact for those in Washington DC who had seemed certain that Russia would face bankruptcy. Putin can also rely on large deposits of natural wealth, energy and manpower to fuel his war machine, a benefit not afforded to Ukraine, which is already suffering from a haemorrhaging of men and an economy entirely dependent on the US being magnanimous.
In order to end the bloodshed, the West needs to collectively agree on a timetable for a negotiated settlement. Let’s face the facts, this counteroffensive was Ukraine’s last chance to make a difference on the battlefield and they failed, drastically. With most economies still in a downturn and the dominance of the neoliberals and neoconservatives fading, Ukraine will struggle to win that level of support again. With every new day, Russian forces entrench themselves further in, creating a ring of fortifications almost impregnable. Unless the Ukrainian men are ready to sacrifice themselves in a pointless meatgrinder, diplomacy is the only solution to the war, otherwise we risk repeating the Korean War, a conflict frozen in time, people trapped and lives ruined.
First, Western countries should re-open communication channels with their Russian counterparts. Once an amicable relationship has been re-established, both sides should focus on putting into place a ceasefire to stop the unnecessary bloodshed. Then, talks should begin.
As with all conflicts where neither side holds a favourable advantage, both will have to make harsh concessions. Though the list of grievances is exhaustive, major points of contention include: Crimea’s autonomy, jurisdiction over the Donbas region, how to trial and prosecute war criminals, the financial consequences of rebuilding war-torn areas, and economic sanctions levied on Russia.
While I do not consider myself to have any authority on the matter, a settlement could look something like this:
In recognition of the fact Russia has held the peninsula for nearly a decade and the majority of the population favours their new status, the West should acknowledge Crimea as part of Russia.
Control over the newly-conquered territories should be decided by free, democratic referendums overseen by an independent mediator.
Those responsible of war crimes should be handed over to the International Criminal Court and trialled.
Economic sanctions placed on Russia should gradually be rolled back in exchange for Russia abiding by its terms of the peace treaty.
Russia and Ukraine should respect the sovereignty of their neighbours and relinquish any irredentist ambitions.
Russia should help finance the rebuilding of war-torn regions, both in Ukraine proper and the disputed territories.