Two days apart, the two sides of the global Ukrainian conflict were issuing increasingly recurring warnings to the world: the West, first, was raising fears that the war could drag on for years. Russia, secondly, anticipates a conflict that may be of long duration. Therefore, the Secretary-General of NATO called for “not to reduce support” to Ukraine “even if the costs are high” not only in military aid, “but also because of the high prices of energy and food.” As for the British Prime Minister, after a visit to Kiev, he concluded “the need to prepare for a long war.”
On the other hand, the Kremlin considered, for the first time, that tension with Western countries “will not recede,” and its spokesman said: “We will not trust the West again.” In light of this assessment of the situation, the two sides reviewed the weapons they are preparing for the coming months. The Russian President talked about the long-range Sarmat missile that will enter the service of his forces by the end of this year, while Western sources focused on the arrival of the American “HIMARS” missiles, as well as “Howitzer” cannons. From European countries, to the Ukrainian forces.
Neither side has reached its goals, nor does it see a horizon or sufficient data to end the war, so the momentum of efforts to move toward negotiation has receded, despite the initiatives being studied and ripening, but each party is waiting for the other, but Moscow is not about to stop its military operations, and Kyiv does not find that Her losses prevent her from continuing the fight.
The armaments flowing into Ukraine, which is asking for more, is constantly strengthening its steadfastness and trying to maintain some of the lost parity in the balance of power, as well as confirming the West’s determination to prevent Russia from achieving a decisive victory. But the more sophisticated and high-precision the armament appears, the more advanced the Russian side is in the type of weapons it uses in order to quell every resistance on the fronts of eastern Ukraine, that is, it controls the balance of power in number and quality.
In the midst of this frantic and exhausting race, the NATO summit was convened to approve a “new strategic concept” that is supposed to include, on the one hand, an increase in the deployment of its soldiers and military defenses along its borders in Eastern Europe, while being careful not to extend the war outside Ukraine, and on the other hand showing more Attention and readiness for China’s moves. Although the “NATO” countries find no other options than maintaining their solidarity and cohesion, they seem to falter in their positions regarding a war that will reflect on their internal conditions, and it is not clear what its outcome, its time horizon, or how to deal with the strategic situation that will emerge from it.
It is clear that the two sides are setting rules for military escalation and trying to observe them under deterrent ceilings. But the economic crises resulting from the war have become associated with military risks, and after it became clear that there were no ready-made solutions to them, they also imposed themselves on the agenda of the summit of the seven countries that continue to put pressure on Russia, while all of them face political repercussions that appeared and will appear in the elections (France, Britain, the United States, etc.), as societies suffer from high energy and food prices.
At the same time, warnings of the repercussions of the war on global food security are increasing. Although the Russian side does not highlight its difficulties, but rather uses them to incite public opinion in the West against its governments (stopping Russian gas shipments to European countries), Western sanctions are affecting its financial and economic situation and requires more cooperation and coordination between Moscow and Beijing to ease the crisis. This only means that the two sides are willing to prolong the war and are not thinking of ending it.
* Writer and political analyst – London
#managing #war #managing #prolongation