Why "a stalemate" is just a nice way of saying "Putin wins"

War in Ukraine - Why "a stalemate" is just a nice way of saying "Putin wins"

The world's eyes are on the Gaza Strip, while the war in Ukraine rages on unabated. In the West, the overly optimistic forecasts about the success of the Ukrainian summer offensive have given way to a more pensive tone. Hardly anyone believes that Kiev will achieve a major success this winter. There is now talk of a "draw" or a "stalemate" on the front. Given the movements on the front, "stalemate" sounds plausible. Neither side can make major gains or force a real breach in the opposing front. With all their might, the Ukrainians were able to push the Russians back a few kilometers in some places, and for a few weeks now the Russians have been able to advance again. But only on a very manageable scale.

However, the near standstill at the front does not mean that the situation is static. Static would mean that it can continue unchanged for a long time, that there is a stable balance on the front. Since the summer, fierce fighting has been going on at many points along the front, which is over 1000 kilometers long. Even without an advance, it is a carnage. Material and people are constantly being devoured. The focus of the fighting shifts, the names of the embattled villages change. But basically it is one gigantic battle of attrition. Such battles were called blood mills or meat grinders in the First World War.

Collapse even without movement

This is not a good development. The summer offensive was hyped because all the experts agreed that the Kiev troops were superior to Putin's soldiers in mobile combat - because they had better morale, better equipment and a better operational doctrine. Static combat, on the other hand, plays into Putin's hands because the shortcomings in troop leadership and training are less significant, but the higher Russian firepower has an impact.

The essence of the battle of attrition is not to gain ground, even if this is what the propaganda wants. It is a battle that constantly weakens and bleeds the enemy. Behind this is the calculation that one's own side can endure the inevitable losses longer than the opponent. At some point, the enemy will collapse from weakness, even if there have been no major retreats beforehand. The German defeat in the West at the end of the First World War is a prime example of such a weak front collapse.

There can only be talk of a stalemate in Ukraine if the attrition of the war is so even that neither side gains an advantage. This is not impossible, but the small shifts on the front cannot be used as evidence.

Ukraine or Russia: who will hold out longer?

At present, the signs are not good that Kiev will be able to endure this form of war for long. Soldiers are the most important resource in war. Russia has around 140 million inhabitants, Ukraine around 44 million. In principle at least, because some of the population lives under Russian control, while others have left the country because of the Russian war of aggression. There are around 650,000 registered male Ukrainians of military age in the EU countries, thus de facto evading compulsory military service. Russia currently has around four times the population and a correspondingly high recruitment potential. Even if one assumes higher losses among the Russians, the imbalance remains.

In terms of war material, the hope that the Russian military industry would collapse due to Western sanctions has not been fulfilled. In fact, there has been a massive increase in new production and the refurbishment of older war material. The question arises: Can Ukraine supply war material on the same scale as Putin produces new material? In other words: Are Western supplies keeping pace with Russian production? Will we send more tanks to Ukraine or will Putin do it?

Artillery failure of the West

Particularly with regard to the production of new weapons, there is no evidence that the West has entered into a form of partial war economy. The best example is the promised delivery of one million artillery shells to Kiev from the EU. The target has been missed by a long way, while Russia has received a million shells from North Korea within a few weeks and more may follow. It is also of little use if individual high-tech systems such as Iris-T are promised, but there is already a worrying lack of standards such as simple mortar shells (82 and 120 mm) at the front.

At the same time, the Russians are constantly exploiting Ukraine's economy and infrastructure - with drone attacks and glide bombs. Kiev also regularly manages to hit individual warehouses, refineries and bases in Russia. This kind of thing hinders the Russians, but their work of destruction in Ukraine has a far greater dimension. Put simply: every month that the war continues, less of Ukraine's substance remains.

War is becoming more and more expensive

If the war continues, Russia will be able to increase its war efforts for years to come. It is not foreseeable that the West will be able to cut Russia off from income and supplies from the rest of the world and that Putin's war economy will collapse. Ukraine's own economic performance will continue to decline due to the ongoing destruction, which raises the question of whether its allies can or even want to counter Russia's efforts.

To do so, Kiev would have to receive more money or arms supplies from year to year. In addition to the increase in Russian production, the sharp price rises from Western suppliers must be offset. The price of artillery ammunition is said to have risen by around a third since the start of the war. Instead of 100 million, over 130 million would now have to be paid for the same quantity of shells. The situation is getting worse because the USA will reduce its support and expect the Europeans to fill the gap.

Even if this negative list does not have to be true in every respect, it makes it clear how risky it is for Kiev to bet on a stalemate. If you compare the war to a boxing match, rounds with a draw are of no use to Kiev because Russia can last more rounds. For a real stalemate, Ukraine would have to survive the winter as well or as badly as the invaders. However, if the Ukrainians suffer more, stalemate is just a nice way of saying "Putin wins". If the Russians also succeed on the front, push the Ukrainians back or conquer one or two cities, there can be no question of a stalemate. In this case, the stalemate scenario would become a complete illusion.