The scene of the conflict in Ukraine presents a standstill, pending the partial mobilization of the Russians and the objective obstacles raised by the coming harsh winter. The period of time until conditions are formed that will allow the resumption of operations, will prove to be either a period of behind-the-scenes processes aimed at a cease-fire and the prevalence of a cold peace, or a period of preparation of the belligerents for new military spring adventures.
The clear data
On the part of Russia, there is a desire to conclude the war, without any disposition to retreat to the territories that have been occupied. Foreign Minister Lavrov, from the floor of the UN General Assembly, invited the USA to “secret talks”, while clarifying, in an indirect way, who he considers the real war on the Ukrainian front. But he also issued the threat of seeking to annex more territories, meaning in all probability a further advance on the coastal front, towards the region of Odessa.
For their part, the Ukrainians, encouraged by the tactical success of the counter-offensive in the Kharkiv region, declare in all tones that the war will end with the liberation of Crimea, which they lost in 2014. In this context, they are suffocating their Westerners allies to supply them with additional state-of-the-art weapon systems.
The aim is to continue the counter-attack, combined with support in the field of all kinds of information, with the first target being the Donbass (Lugansk and Donetsk). Theoretically, in the event of a successful outcome of such operations, the issue in the Chersona area would also be resolved in a positive way for them.
Absolute impasse and imposition of the will
The attitude of the two sides at this particular moment in time points to an absolute impasse. This means that additional time and bloodshed will be required to create a new situation on the battlefields that will bend the will of either side to continue, seeing the sacrifice as futile. The balance between continued Western support for Ukrainian forces and the effectiveness of reinforced Russian forces in the field will determine the outcome.
Beyond the desires of both sides, the result will be judged by the possibility of imposing the will of one on the other. There it will be seen which “wants” were wishful thinking and which reflected the real balance of power. The belligerents are called upon to manage the consequences within their societies from the continuation of the conflict.
Communication war
On the Russian side, there are reactions at the level of social support for the presidential decision on partial mobilization. But it would be uncritical to criticize a one-sided presentation of the developments by the Western Media. They deliberately gloss over the criticism leveled at Putin of miscalculations that led to the deployment of insufficient military force to achieve the objective in Ukraine.
Russian society, in its vast majority, considers at least the regions of Donbas, as well as Crimea, to be Russian. Even today, Putin is accused of hesitantly mobilizing the Russian military potential. Failure to complete the operation in time is natural to cause trepidation, just as it is natural for a party to wish to avoid conscription. The prospect of conscription is perfectly normal and predictable to cause reactions on the part of a number of those involved and their families.
All this always based on the image provided by the Western Media, since Russian has been excluded in the context of the propaganda war of each side. And since the real conflict directly involves Washington and Moscow, it was expected that the intensity of this communication war would surpass that of any other war of the post-Cold War era.
What has been said is not intended to show that the situation in Russia is rosy. Obviously, the Russian people are not volunteering to join the army with patriotic ideals to contribute to the victory on the Ukrainian front. After all, an aggressive war is one thing, and the country being attacked is another.
But focusing the image solely on those trying to leave Russia to avoid being drafted aims to build a convenient image of universal social opposition to Vladimir Putin, which does not represent reality.
The effects of globalization on the shacks of warring parties
As misleading as it is to conclude that Russian society opposes its leadership, it would be even more so to believe the exact opposite, an image that the Russian Media is trying to cultivate, for the same reasons. The era of globalization has inevitably transformed all societies, including the Russian one. It has oriented them towards the pursuit of affluence and the apotheosis of consumerism, imitating each other as television networks carry relevant images and standards from and around the world.
However, the reality is that consumer goods are enjoyed by a social minority in every country. It is reasonable to assume that in the vast and ethnically rich Russian Federation, this percentage is lower compared to the West. Inevitably, patriotic reflexes are usually bent when war calls for personal or family involvement as a consequence of conscription. It would be logical for the average Russian to weigh the possible personal cost with the annexation of areas of Ukraine.
All of this could have been the subject of assessments in the West’s attempt to rationally anticipate the effects of the war within Russian society. In the USA, however, the decision for continuous and large in volume and quality military reinforcement of the Ukrainians stems from the pursuit of transforming Ukraine into a “Russian Vietnam”.
The above observations, however, are a “double-edged sword”. Even though the West is not fighting with its own soldiers in Ukraine and so its societies remain unaffected by the human costs of war, it is precisely this addiction of European societies in particular to peace that makes them more vulnerable to the energy and wider economic effects that already are ascertained.
That said, the war in Ukraine is taking on the characteristics of a “clash of wills” and endurance for both sides. Whichever side endures the longest, which doesn’t buckle from the consequences of a war with no end in sight, will prevail.
A more likely scenario is that Russia controls and integrates the lands of the historical tsarist “Novorossiya”. Any attack on Russian soil will be considered an attack on Russia, with all that implies for the means a nuclear power can mobilize to defend its expanded territory. The West will be pleased to have “isolated and destabilized” the Russian leadership, which it has demonized anyway.
The new round of conflict will be the management of the next day. The Russians will try to reduce the time required to return to an international normality. They seem to have no problem surviving under international sanctions until reality and fatigue lead the West to recognize the territorial annexations.
Leaderships change everywhere, as do the requirements to serve one’s vital interests, according to developments. This can lead to spectacular reversals, as each side will continue to try to shape developments in a way that will serve their own interests.
For example, Western governments (they change more often than Russian ones), some more and some less, will continue to try to create conditions for the collapse of the Putin regime. The Russians, for their part, will seek to create conditions where Russia’s cooperation will serve vital interests for the West. But the scenarios are endless. What is hardly in doubt is that the sure loser will be the devastated Ukraine.
