West's plans: Wolves are relatively fed, sheep are relatively unharmed

To put it simply, any gain for Russia is a loss for Ukraine, and vice versa.

For that same reason, a "both sides lost" scenario is equally impossible — because any setback for Ukraine is immediately a win for Russia.

However, there's an attempt to spin it by lowering the bar for Ukraine. They’ll claim, "Ukraine has already won because Russia didn’t achieve all its objectives." This is a refrain we hear often.

The wolves have devoured some of the sheep, but not all. So, now they say the wolves are relatively fed, and the sheep are relatively unscathed. You could try to sell this as a win-win, but it doesn’t quite work (and it has a faint echo of the Russian classic: “Be grateful you’re still breathing”).

If you discard this narrative and assess the win/loss starting from the pre-war status quo, the reality is stark: either Russia loses, or Ukraine does.

But Russia’s defeat would mean the swift collapse of Putin’s regime — and possibly the entire Kremlin structure. So, Putin will fight until he physically can't or until the situation in Russia itself deteriorates so badly that he has no choice but to stop. (This is another uncomfortable truth many shy away from — a "don’t look up" situation.)

And still, no one can force Ukraine into accepting a partial loss, dressed up as some sort of partial victory.

So, once again, Western politicians keep trying to solve an impossible puzzle: how to get Putin to “realize on his own” the irrationality (what?!?) of continuing the war and agree to end it under some negotiated terms.

But really, this impossible task is just a distraction from the true dilemma: which side needs to lose for the West to minimize current and future risks?

Source

About the author. Oleksiy Panych, philosopher, member of the Ukrainian Center of the International PEN Club, blogger.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.