Ukraine war a lose-lose proposition for all concerned

Some two and a half years after Russia launched its “special military operation” against Ukraine there appears to be little thought given to how the conflict could realistically end. Currently, both parties claim that their goal is “victory.”

For President Volodymyr Zelensky, this entails the return to Ukraine of all the territories occupied by Russia, including Crimea, and NATO membership.

For President Vladimir Putin victory means that Russia gets to keep the territories it seized from its neighbor and that Ukraine not only abstains from joining NATO but acknowledges that it is part of Russia’s sphere of influence.

In other words, each party demands the unqualified capitulation of its adversary as of today. Given the current circumstances, these conditions are not likely to be met, and if recent history is a guideline, they probably never will be.

The Second World War was the last major conflict that ended with the total defeat of one of the opposing sides, in that case, the Axis powers embodied by Japan and Germany. All subsequent wars, from Korea to Vietnam to the Iran/Iraq conflict ended either with a negotiation, a compromise (be it temporary) or a return to the status quo ante.

And in the two cases where the invading power was initially successful, namely Iraq and Afghanistan, it proved incapable of consolidating its hold on its opponent.

Therefore, one can realistically assume, irrespective of the official pronouncements made by all the parties to the Ukraine conflict, that the outcome will be some sort of “modus vivendi,” even if this might take the form of an unending, protracted, low-intensity confrontation. But whatever the outcome, there are a number of realities that cannot be ignored.

In terms of