Thread by @polidemitolog

I've been closely following the renewed debate about peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, brought on by the piece in Time magazine and Zaluzhny's essay in the Economist, and I'm baffled by the fact that most approach the situation from the wrong side. A 🧵

Western pundits, both those who continue to strongly support Ukraine and those who have wavered (I'm not even mentioning the ones lobbying against Ukraine from the beginning) seem convinced that the Ukraine-West relations are the deciding factor in starting peace negotiations.

Ukraine is understood to be the unrelenting party, which refuses to sit down at the negotiation table and that it will soon break under the risk of a Trump victory in the US, the crisis in the Middle East and the stalemate on the front.

Zelensky specifically is being set up to appear unreasonable and corrupt. It's no accident that the corruption narrative has been in the center of discussions recently. The corruption narrative is the easiest way to push blame on Zelensky and pressure him to negotiate.

What's been completely missing from this West-centric debate (either if it's the resilient attitude or the "I can't manage several crises" attitude) is Russia. Western observers seem to assume that Putin will welcome an end to war he's stuck in and they're wrong.

Putin remaining in the war is what's keeping him in power and giving his rule meaning. Russia under sanctions, with a light totalitarian political system, without an external threat, is unsustainable. The eternal war has become a necessity for Putin.

Now, a war may have various meanings - last year's failed blitzkrieg for Kyiv, last year's long-front offensives or this year's territorially compressed ones. It depends on the resources at hand, while taking into account the political and economic risk for mustering them.

Putin, or at least his generals (who aren't allowed to write stalemate essays in the press like Zaluzhny), are fully aware that Russia has mustered enough resources to protect its presence in Ukraine, but that that's not enough for a large breakthrough.

General Zaluzhny (who has the luxury to be a general of a democratic country, where officials do not accidentally fall out of windows) basically came to the same conclusion on the Ukrainian side. I assure you, Russian generals share his opinion, they just can't say it out loud.

The Western leaders, Biden's administration included, may think on the lines of - Russia has been strategically contained, NATO strengthened, Ukraine is standing, it can afford to temporarily give up on some of its territory in exchange for security guarantees and EU perspective.

Then the West can turn to contain Iran in the Middle East and, of course, the looming China threat in the Far East. "Not great, not terrible" for Ukraine, they conclude. Maybe Zelensky holds elections, maybe he's defeated by a popular military figure, Ukraine goes on.

The only thing is that Putin isn't ready to oblige the West and take a piece of Ukraine. He'll rather take a low-intensity war without any agreements. Thus, Putin will be the one to break this little dream of the West and not "that stubborn, corrupt mule" Zelensky.

The West has already poured resources into Ukraine, but, more importantly, it has staked its reputation on Ukraine not being defeated (not to be confused with Ukraine winning, which is a different scenario). Putin knows that the West cannot abandon Ukraine.

Putin is constantly drawing his red lines in the sand not to stop the war and Western aid, but to control its size so he can manage his eternal war of lowered intensity.

Consequently, the point is moot. The West doesn't have to break Zelensky, it has to break Putin.

Ironically, the only sure way of breaking Putin is increasing aid to Ukraine, not keeping it constrained. Since Biden's administration has chosen a different path, the war will go on indefinitely and Putin is completely fine with it. He has plans to die in power.