Thread by @jojalonen

All right, maybe it's time to make some comments regarding Ukraine again.

This time I'm going to say openly some things that people in important positions are unwilling to discuss in public. Well, someone has to do it, right?

First, let's admit the obvious: by now, the Western strategy of arming Ukraine while avoiding intervention is probably destined to fail.

The strategy may be enough to guarantee that Ukraine will not lose. But it cannot guarantee Ukrainian victory.

At this point, one should note that while Russia will never be able to subdue the entire Ukraine, as long as hostilities continue, Russia is, for all practical purposes, winning more than it's losing.

Russia will be able to keep most of Eastern Ukraine under occupation and inflict devastation on Ukraine; Russia will still, in spite of its maritime setbacks, be able to control most of the Black Sea; and lastly, the ongoing war effectively sustains Putin's regime.

I've said before that Putin has based the very existence of his entire regime on war. So far, victorious wars -- Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Syria. A decisive military defeat would shake the foundations of his regime. But right now it seems he will be able to avoid that.

As long as the "special operation" continues, there's more fuel for the Russian government propaganda. There's an ongoing justification for new extraordinary measures, such as the recent steps towards war economy. At some point, more reserves will be called up.

What passes as "opposition elements" in Russia cannot do much. Sporadic civil resistance is limited, and likely to remain limited.

Putin can work gradually, slowly. The war in Ukraine is shaping to become a war of attrition -- the kind of war where Russia has natural advantage.

Western analysts and pundits have relied on overcoming this fact by the supply of supposedly superior Western military equipment to Ukraine. This supply has, however, been limited, and at any rate, it wouldn't solve the fundamental issues. There are no miracle weapons at hand.

Simultaneously, Western commentators have increasingly started to talk about how the war is likely to continue "for years". It's always so easy to accept a prolonged war when it's not fought on your own domestic soil, no? No road to victory is ever mentioned in these talks.

Several Western leaders have repeatedly stated that any peace treaty should be signed on Ukraine's terms. This is a nice carte blanche, but in practice, if the war continues on its present course, Ukraine will have no realistic possibility of retaking its territories.

Russians are building up entrenched positions in the East. While these may not be unassailable, I must say I doubt if Ukraine could ever break them alone.

And even with depleted troops, Russians advance. Last week, Sievierodonetsk; next, Sloviansk; after that, maybe Kramatorsk.

Better equipment, more skillful military art, bravery -- those will not be enough to tilt the balance. Wars of attrition are fought on production lines, and with troops, with raw numbers.

Western powers can gear up the production. But Ukraine does not have the raw numbers.

So, the West would have to supply some of these numbers.

This brings us to the part which no one wants to talk about, not aloud: the potential necessity of Western military intervention against Russia to stop the war, and to guarantee Ukrainian victory.

Do note that I'm not making policy here. From my point of view, I'm simply stating the obvious. Assuming that the goal is to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Ukrainian victory in the war, treating this as some kind of a proxy war won't work, not in the long run.

One cannot approach the present conflict with the same strategy which was used when Western powers supported Croatia against Serbia, or when the Kurds were propped up to deal with the Daesh. Resource-wise, Russia is four times larger than Ukraine.

So, sooner or later -- if the war _is_ supposed to be won -- the EU countries or the NATO will have to consider the possibility of intervening directly.

In my opinion, the sooner this is stated openly and admitted as a fact, the better.

Furthermore: the EU leaders have named this war as war for Europe, for European values. How moral it is, in the long run, to treat such a war simply as an undertaking where only one country is suffering the casualties and facing destruction?

Obviously, people in the EU countries have tremendous difficulties adjusting even to the possibility of wartime measures or war economy -- incidentally, Ukrainians will have to deal with much harsher conditions, on daily basis.

How will the EU citizens adjust to the possibility of having to intervene against Russia, having to actually fight... well, that's up for questions.

Of course, in that case, certain countries -- including the one that I live in -- would be at greater risk than some others.

Naturally people are also concerned of the possibility of nuclear weapons. There's a realistic fear that an intervention might create a situation where Russia would "escalate to de-escalate", and embark on a nuclear exchange.

I'm not overlooking these fears. However, I would note that as long as a nuclear arsenal offers the possibility of launching a war of aggression with impunity, the established international order rests on a very shaky ground indeed. This is an issue that should be dealt with.

I also believe that allowing this fear to dictate our decisions only means that it will come back to haunt us later on, again and again. We've moved to an era of nuclear blackmail by rogue states, with Russia as one such state. The question is how long do we allow this to last?

I'm not saying that these issues are not difficult. They are -- they are _fatal_ issues, for the entire World. And I completely realize that even talking about these may appear irresponsible. There's nothing casual about them.

But even still: Ukraine is experiencing mass destruction daily. Western fears are, so far, mainly academic, and Putin is relying on those fears. What's happening Ukraine is real, and taking place right now.

There are really very few ways out of the situation. European security has been shaken by a regime which wages a war of aggression, seeks to rebuild its lost empire, and uses hunger and nuclear weapons to blackmail the World.

By now, most European states have accepted that a deal with such a regime is unthinkable. But we live in a peculiar limbo -- we have not yet really accepted what should be done next.

In the long run, you can't commit yourself to other people's wars without actually shouldering the burden yourself. Americans discovered this in 1941, and that was a rude awakening.

We're barely even thinking about supplying the victim of aggression effectively. We're shunning the possibility that we might have to make any final sacrifices ourselves. But eventually, we may be faced with exactly that.

We're prolonging the hostilities in the hope of avoiding them. We could act decisively to end them -- at a great risk, but the refusal to take this risk out of fear may mean a recognition of a much worse international order.

And, again: these are not easy things to say. But these are the issues people should be thinking about.

And just to clarify: in this thread, I'm talking of the Western intervention taking place _within_ Ukraine, to restore Ukrainian territories. _Not_ against recognized Russian national territory. But given that the Kremlin considers Crimea as such, for them, there's no difference.