(C) OpenDemocracy
This story was originally published by OpenDemocracy and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Ukraine war: some US military figures say stalemate can’t be broken [1]

[]

Date: 2023-04

By late March last year, barely a month after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war was already at a stalemate. And this is where we are now, at the end of the war’s first year. Russia can’t win because NATO has its global standing on the line and will support Ukraine to the end, but Ukraine and NATO cannot win for fear of a Russian nuclear escalation.

As a recent report in Culturico makes clear, part of the myth of stable nuclear deterrence rests on the assumption that nuclear powers would never consider using nuclear weapons first. But that is certainly not the posture of Russia or, for that matter, NATO.

The prospects for negotiations look minimal and a long-term violent stand-off is all too plausible, but many questions still remain. Has Russia lost global status? Can it maintain its army at the level needed given its formidable losses to date? Can its current rate of armaments production be maintained? And what changes might be under way in terms of domestic support for Vladimir Putin?

On the other side, will NATO and – especially – the United States, maintain the current level of support for Ukraine? Are there new weapons and tactics that can alter the balance of military power in Ukraine’s favour? What end to the war does the White House seek, and could it be achieved without a dangerous escalation by Putin? Is there any room for negotiations, however informal and unofficial?

Help us uncover the truth about Covid-19 The Covid-19 public inquiry is a historic chance to find out what really happened. Make a donation

On the question of global status, Russia certainly lost status during the first month of the war, when its forces failed to take Kyiv and Donbas, couldn’t overrun – let alone occupy – Kharkiv, and were unable to take control of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast down to and beyond Odessa.

Despite this, global opposition to Russia’s aggression is nothing like Western politicians might have expected. Last week’s column sought to explain this, and since then a report revealing more about Global South attitudes has been published by the European Council on Foreign Relations, following a survey of 15 countries including India and Turkey. As The Guardian noted, the survey “revealed sharp geographical differences in attitudes to the war, democracy and the global balance of power… suggesting Russia’s aggression may be a historic turning point marking the emergence of a ‘post-Western’ world order”.

When it comes to the size of the Russian army, there is no doubt that losses have been great. Putin was expected to announce a further mobilisation during his ‘state of the union’ address this week, but chose instead to use the address to withdraw from the New START strategic arms treaty with the US, which aims to limit nuclear arsenals. Another mobilisation is still possible, especially with the recent losses in the Donbas, but there is little sign of one yet.

As to armaments, Russia does have problems with sourcing key components for missile guidance thanks to Western sanctions, and this is limiting missile accuracy. But if the missiles are to be used for attacks on cities where accuracy is not essential, then it is less significant.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ukraine-war-russia-nato-stalemate-us-military-peacemakers/

Published and (C) by OpenDemocracy
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/opendemocracy/