I don't think that "willing to negotiate as long as we get more than we have now" is realistic, especially from the side which is (1) the aggressor & (2) has broken its previous agreements. To the Ukrainians, & me, that looks like "We'll settle for an agreement that leaves us in a good position to break it when we're ready". An agreement that leaves the aggressor better placed than it is now is not at all realistic.
Realism has to take into account past behaviour & likely future behaviour.
While I don’t necessarily disagree, or not entirely, I believe their position is more realistic than Ukraine’s simply because they never closed the door for negotiations and this is likely not their actual position to begin with (may sound contradictory to a part of my previous post, but I will try to expend either in this or the next post). Moreover, they have the upper hand in terms of territory control and means and it appears it may not change in the foreseeable future and time is also not on the Ukrainian side. Furthermore, if Ukraine completely exhausts their “offensive potential”, without any significant breakthroughs, what’s next? What if Russia keeps moving at the north east? What if they start moving elsewhere? Could a be long stretch, but we definitely cannot disregard this possibility. They may also simply sit tight and continue to wreck the country until it is no more. Can Ukraine function as a successful independent state or at least as what it was prior to 2022 (or prior to 2014?) with what is currently happening? Can it be a functional (and successful) state such as Israel? The answer to both is probably a no because it is a huge territory, Russians use more than “primitive” weapons, AD is in short supply, etc. Even if it was possible (and I don’t think it is) to establish a “shield” over the country of this size, it would simply take an enormous amount of time and resources, neither of which is available. Another possibility is the way of Korea, which Ukrainians rejected outright because that comes with the loss of territory and I am not sure it is in Russia’s interest to go that way either, but beggars can’t be choosers.
Currently, Ukrainian government is acting like it has unlimited resources via our backing, which is unreasonable. Don’t get me wrong, I get their “griefs and outrage” from my armchair, so to speak, but I am not talking about fairness here, but reality. You seem to refer to the former. Fairness is relative and what’s fair to one is not to the other and the opposing sides here see fairness very differently. It would be great if all lived in the great imaginary world of John Lennon, described in his probably best song, but we aren’t and, as they say, the world isn’t fair. It is not even remotely fair (or reasonable), for example, to assume that “we will be backing Ukraine as long as it takes” is an actual promise in the first place (firstly, backing how and secondly, as long as what takes?). I will discuss this point below. Realistically, it belongs in the same pile as “we are taking Crimea back and establishing a demilitarized zone in western Russia”. Another example from that pile is “we are demanding the NATO to move back to its -insert year- borders or else”. The latter ended up growing legs due to lack of effort and discussion, in my opinion, and we are debating the results or progress right now. I am fairly certain if we all could take this back and approach the crisis differently we all (or most reasonable of us) would. Some may even ask how did we f it up so badly.
I mentioned before, though some refuted my posts with their opinions, but it isn’t cheap in comparison to anything to keep this going. The current cost of this war (and I am talking about the last couple of years tops) is probably in trillions of actual dollars spent, as well as lost opportunities (some estimates suggest that the loss of income worldwide was as high as $2.8 trillion half a year ago because of this war:
Opinion | What the War in Ukraine Has Truly Cost Us). One has to look no further than what the Euros (including the Brits) are spending on energy subsidies. That amount alone for the region reached nearly 800 billion euro for the period since September 2021 to February 2023:
Europe's spend on energy crisis nears 800 billion euros. I am not going to talk about other costs at this point because I believe that alone sufficiently demonstrates the extend, especially as compared to the GDP of Ukraine of $160B last year and $200B on a good (in fact, best) day:
Ukraine GDP - 2023 Data - 2024 Forecast - 1987-2022 Historical - Chart - News. The estimated cost of rebuilding Ukraine varies from significantly less to about half of, again, that amount alone, depending on the estimator (and is further significantly reduced if one takes into account that it would be Russia alone rebuilding what has been destroyed in the territories it controls). So it is far from “pennies” that some assume. Even if you only consider the equipment supplied by the west that many people think of right away as the main cost to us, which it isn’t. Sure, a number of countries very conveniently got rid of the junk and scraps they had rusting for decades, but what are the replacement costs? The NYT article cited above suggests that these costs might be 10-30% higher. Common sense, however, suggests that this is likely a very low estimate given the inflation of the past 2 years alone, as well as the bureaucracy, crippling interest rates, and so on. These costs are going to be astronomical in comparison to the numbers we hear today and I am not even going to mention the timeline of such an endeavour (though I can somewhat envision the poop show it is going to be for years to come). Some of the same is also true for the direct and indirect financial aid provided to Ukraine: no one is providing any of it from their surpluses and cash reserves. And this is quite literally a sunk cost with questionable returns and future costs do not provide any optimism either. The last few sentences are my opinion only, so no sources there.
Perhaps, the other coefficient on the same side of this equation is the Americans, who are partially cashing in on Euros’ losses and their MIC will, maybe, be the one benefitting most. These two - losses and gains - do not cancel each other out though.
Of course, on the same side is another coefficient and that coefficient is Ukraine itself, briefly discussed above. Human lives and suffering, destroyed economy, mental health of millions, catastrophic demographic implications, current and very likely significantly increased future substance abuse, and so on. This RUSI article from earlier in the year discusses some of these issues and touches on others as well:
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/cost-war-ukraine. The country is trashed with no end in sight. Prognosis is not at all optimistic either. How does one monetize all of the above? In my view, even if it ends tomorrow and to Ukraine’s best satisfaction, there is still a question of the existence of the country in the long term.
One last coefficient I will mention from this side is the rest of the world, or the poor of the world, and all the misery that comes with it. That misery likely increased quite dramatically in the past couple of years.
What about the other side of the equation, what’s there? Russia, less stable (both financially and politically), less capable, less free, maybe more reckless and dangerous, less influential, and so on. As for influence though, Middle East, Africa, South America, among many others that are not opposing and some even supporting the aggression doesn't hurt and suggests not all is lost. Then there are those that can be thrown on either side of this equation. Probably Iran and North Korea that are likely benefitting from closer ties with Russia, etc. China is not necessarily “winning” here. India is probably benefiting as well, including lower energy costs, “buddying up” with the US while not frustrating Russia. Turkey is another beneficiary, which is nor here or there. I am not going to go over the entire list to make my point and one can shuffle what I mentioned here any way they want.
The point is that it is pretty clear, at least at the moment, that this is no equation at all, but an inequality and a strong inequality at that. So far Russia has not lost nearly as much as the other side and as many had predicted it would. These costs may increase to some degree in the future, but right now we have what we have.
So, how do we make it fair? What is the end game? What are we to do to change the sign of the inequality or at least turn it into an equation? My answer to the first and last questions is that it is impossible. The second question remains unanswered because I do not see an answer and it does not appear to me that others in play have one as well.
This is part one and part two is (probably) yet to come. I’d hate to be writing this on Twitter!