Any country is able to fight only if there are four factors: a strong economy, a powerful defense-industrial complex, the latest scientific and technical developments, which are sufficiently financed, and an extremely large mobilization resource. Are they in Ukraine? The question is rhetorical. However, the war must be ended as soon as possible, and this is obvious!
On the other hand, the allies and not least the USA did not declare the victory of Ukraine as the final goal, they declare that they will help as much as “as much as necessary”. But it is impossible to win in a race for any distance, if the race is not planned and the goal is not to be at the finish line. The Ukrainian authorities see the end of the war in the victory over the enemy and the liberation of all its territory within the recognized borders, the return of deported children and captured soldiers, the mandatory implementation of the principles of justice against war criminals, as well as the payment of reparations for the damage caused to the country and its citizens .
However, as of now, after more than two years of war, there is still no unified vision of a winning strategy for Ukraine. Recently, approaches to war have changed – the leaders of Western countries have allowed the Ukrainians to use their weapons to launch missile strikes on the Russian Federation. However, this is not a strategy, but point measures that are unlikely to change the course of the war. In the absence of a strategic program, when partners build their cooperation with us step by step, or trench by trench, victory will not be quick, and losses among the military and civilian population will increase.
In addition, in order to achieve victory, the psychological factor in the conduct of hostilities is of great importance for our military. However, observing the total corruption among officials, selective enforcement of laws, bureaucracy, disdainful attitude to the problems of the military, the “Monaco battalion”, life in another dimension of their compatriots, will the moral and psychological factor be at a sufficient level? This is also a rhetorical question.
Of course, it will be difficult to change the situation at the front not only because of the psychological factor. During the war, Russia managed to increase the level of militarization of its economy and is preparing for a long war. Although it does not have a proper strategy for conducting combat operations and uses small infantry groups with a few units of armored vehicles, such methods cannot win on a front that stretches for a distance of 1,600 km. This tactic leads to losses of manpower (about 1,000-1,200 people per day), commensurate with the volume of mobilization in Russia. In other words, the Russian army is not increasing, but it is not decreasing either. Counting on the fact that the newly mobilized Russians are less qualified is a vain hope, in the conditions of war they learn quickly, because it is a matter of life and death. With the equality of forces in the confrontation, victory is not achieved, and the truce is only a postponement, a loss for us in terms of obtaining an unstable situation on our borders. We should not forget that many human victims and the territory could have been saved if not for the greed and criminal cynicism of officials during the construction of fortifications on the border.
Ukraine is now building up its mobilization potential, and has also begun to adjust the production of weapons, because before this the military industry left much to be desired. In order to better organize the work of business structures and more effectively meet the needs of the army, the Ministry of Defense will soon launch the necessary tool – an interface, thanks to which our entrepreneurs will be able to quickly go through the verification procedure and receive government requests for the necessary technologies, as well as government support. This extreme aspect is interesting for Western investors, it will open their access to a large spectrum of the militarized market in Ukraine. However, Russia hopes that Ukraine, as a weaker state, will not withstand such a “marathon” distance, and the West believes that the Russian economy will become unable to provide for their army. Time will tell which of them is more right, only for Ukrainians it is not just a period of time, but a term for survival.
Russia will not agree to end the war on the terms offered by Ukraine. Also, Putin’s entourage believes in the reality of their victory, despite the inability to take some small settlements for months. In turn, the authorities of Ukraine also do not agree to the conditions of the Russian Federation. In addition, among the military in the ranks of the Armed Forces there is a considerable percentage of fighters who are determined to fight relentlessly and completely destroy the enemy. Combat officers tell about this state of affairs, and they know what they are talking about. How can you explain to them a compromise option for ending the war? They are absolutely sure of our victory and need only a sufficient supply of weapons.
The war should not last forever, it is extremely important to end it as soon as possible, because every day people die, entire cities and villages are destroyed.
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyi has repeatedly emphasized the need to find compromise ways.
“If we want peace, we need to sit down and talk. The correct word is to negotiate. But to negotiate, not to fulfill an ultimatum. This is an important point. A compromise can be found in dialogue”, – stated Zelensky.
At the same time, Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, emphasized in an interview with the Italian publication La Repubblica:
“Any compromise with the Russian Federation is a direct path to the next stages of the war, escalation, significant strengthening of the role of global terrorism. The main point of the peace plan is the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. The conversation with the Russians will begin only after that.”
Such a contradictory opinion is voiced, and in which direction to go, the Office of the President has not yet determined. Also, there is no visible attempt to reach a compromise.
Of course, it is necessary to find a compromise settlement of the situation in the Russian-Ukrainian war as soon as possible. Compromise is necessary because there is a great threat of tactical nuclear weapons and World War III. All wars end at some point, and compromises are still found, perhaps difficult at the time, but one that avoids even more deaths on both sides. It is necessary to find such a compromise that the Ukrainian society will accept, perhaps with difficulty, with some misunderstanding and not in the absolute majority, but will accept in order to stop this war.
What can contribute to the end of the war? A change in priorities in the politics of a number of our partner countries, and this primarily concerns the United States. Trump’s likely victory in the presidential election in late 2024 is one such factor. The policy of this hypothetical new head of the White House can push our country to a compromise solution, because Trump is gaining fame as a peacemaker. This can be seen from the results of American public opinion polls in his favor, when he declared that he would quickly stop the war in Ukraine, as well as about the possible withdrawal of the United States from NATO. At the same time, Biden’s victory may mean a prolongation of aid to Ukraine to contain Russia, but not for a final victory over it. Of course, this option will not bring us peace. Because narrowing the enemy’s capabilities in his actions on our territory is also a compromise, only with a small plus.
At the beginning of the war, 78% of Ukrainians considered compromises unacceptable, according to Valentin Badrak, director of the analytical organization “Army, Conversion and Disarmament Research Center”. However, over time, the mood of the people changed. The American Gallup Institute, which conducts public opinion research in various countries, published the results of a survey of Ukrainian residents regarding the war and various political aspects. According to the company, almost all Ukrainians in 2022 agreed that winning the war means returning all the territories that Russia has taken under its control since 2014, starting with the annexation of Crimea. However, at present, more and more Ukrainians understand that this is unrealistic and hope that Ukraine will be able to negotiate an end to the war and make certain compromises. These sentiments are especially evident among Ukrainians who live near the front line in the south and east of the country, where the most active hostilities are taking place. Accordingly, 41% of residents of the southern region and 31% of the eastern region support negotiations that will contribute to the end of the war.
In addition, according to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KMIS) the number of Ukrainians for whom the compromise of ending the war is completely unacceptable has decreased from 77.5% in 2023 to 57.2% this year (a reduction of 20.3%). At the same time, the territorial dimension of changes in public opinion is indicative – last year residents of the western regions (Volhynia, Lviv Oblast, Frankiv Oblast, Ternopil Oblast, Khmelnytsky Oblast, Bukovyna, Transcarpathia and Rivne Oblast) were most adamantly opposed to compromise and territorial concessions – 83.2% of them rejected such an opportunity. This year, their attitude changed – the compromise became unacceptable for 56.3% of native residents of Western Ukraine (those who lived there before the start of the war) – 26.9%. In the South of Ukraine – Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv Oblast, Kherson Oblast and Odesa Oblast – there are even fewer “unshakable” – 53.7% (-20%).
Ukrainians are now actively discussing how long they will be able to hold out in the war against the Russian Federation in the face of a shortage of weapons and manpower. All people are very concerned about this issue, it is at the top of the agenda, because people are tired of war and its terrible consequences. At the same time, most of them realize that the war must be ended and that there is no way to do without compromises.
At the time, difficult questions arose about the options for its end – should we continue to refuse territorial concessions, even if because of this the war will last longer, the mobilization will be more massive, there will be more deaths, and there will also be threats to the preservation of independence? Should resilience continue when any effort at the national level is still insufficient to change the geopolitical context? Our future depends on the answers to these questions.
