PUTIN HAS TO BE DEFEATED, ANYTHING LESS IS VICTORY FOR HIM

The past few weeks, as the Russian failure to take Ukraine as originally promised failed, and as Russian forces retreated, leaving behind evidence of activities even the Nazis would have tried to hid, many western observers suggested that Vladimir Putin had ordered his forces to deliver success in Mariupol and Eastern Ukraine in time for Russia’s Victory Day, on 9 May.

That appears now to be an assessment that was based largely on circumstantial evidence and the cult status of Victory Day itself.

Today, Putin declared a “victory” in Mariupol while directing his forces not to assault the steel mill where the last Ukrainin defenders are holed up in the basements and tunnels, saying that there is no need to make such an assault, while ordering the Russian forces to keep up their siege until the defnders are forced to come out and surrender.

This fits with what the Russian propaganda services, er, I mean the Russian media, is telling its own population; these domestic propaganda channels are no longer making promises of a swift end to the conflict.

I personally don’t think the Russian army has the competence to break the Ukrainians in Mariupol, at least not without adding heavily to the 24,000 casualties they’ve already lost to their incompetence and lack of ability.

But Putin now has the freedom to declare victory by whatever artificial deadline or fact set he chooses. With his announcement of “victory” in Mariupol today, he has demonstrated he can change the goal posts again if necessary.

When they failed to take Kyiv or any of the other major Ukrainian cities, Russia reinvented what its war was supposed to achieve, stating they were going to secure Eastern Ukraine to protect the “seperatists” in Luhansk and Donbas from the Urkainians who wanted to wipe them out.

Moscow can say it has achieved its aims regardless of the facts on the ground and call an end to its “special operation” at will. This would present harsh dilemma to the Ukrainian government. There is no way that Ukraine can politically accept any result that leaves Russia in control of any part of the country after what has happened. Thus, in this situation, the Ukrainian government would have to fight on, despite the fact that Russia would appear to be offering peace.

This would risking erosion in the support from NATO members like Germany, Hungary and Italy who would prefer to see an end to the fighting even if, in the long term, it would mean the end of Ukraine. We have already discovered that German support for Ukraine is not as strong as they claimed, with the news that Prime Minister Scholz refused to allow any export of “heavy weapons” to Ukraine in the face of the coming military crisis.

If Putin were to declare that any Russian advance in the east was the “victory” he sought and then unilaterally declared and end to the war, Ukraine’s western supporters could push Kyiv to follow suit, a demand Volodymyr Zelenskiy may be unable to resist since they would likely couple such a demand with ending their supply of military equipment to keep fighting should Ukraine be seen as continuing the war “unnecessarily.”

With or without a 9 May deadline, there are good reasons for Putin to seek a temporary end to the fighting. A declaration of “victory” would provide the “off-ramp” for Russia that would be useful to Moscow. If such “peace” was declared, there would be support from several important NATO members to drop the sanctions against Putin and Russia, on the grounds that they “worked.”

Rather than destroying Ukrainian defenses regardless of cost, this Russian offensive could have far more limited and deliberate ambitions. The eventual, inevitable end of Ukrainian resistance in Mariupol could be presented as a major strategic victory - we should watch what Putin does over this weekend, now that he has declared “victory” there today.

Russia and its propagandists can then depict the surrender of the Azov battalion, which they have portrayed as a neo-Nazi organization, as Russian success in its aim of “de-nazification” of Ukraine. With Putin in total control of the information that reaches large sectors of the Russian people, even insignificant territorial gains can be sold as major breakthroughs.

While Ukraine cannot continue the war indefinitely without major economic aid and increased military assistance, Russia can devote resources and manpower for far longer. Ukraine’s infrastructure is under attack; the key agricultural exports have been interdicted by the Russian maritime blockade of Odesa. If western backers don’t offer enough support, Ukraine could find itself in the situation where the burden is unsustainable.

At the same time, it is obvious Russia will not conclude any agreements on ending the war in good faith. An end to the war will do nothing to relieve the suffering of Ukrainians under Russian occupation. Ukraine has a moral imperative to relieve its citizens who are facing terror and deportation in Russian-occupied territories.

If Zelensky is forced to accept a “peace” under these circumstances, Ukraine will be unable to hinder Russian plans for the occupied territories. The Kremlin is reported to be planning staged referendums in occupied Ukraine like the 2014 “referendum” used to give false legitimacy to Putin’s seizure of Crimea. While the West and Ukraine will face the burden of rebuilding the destroyed cities, economy and armed forces, Putin ill be able to restart the war when he feels the timing is right. Pursuing a “temporary” ceasefire risks a country permanently divided between Russian-occupied territory and a Ukrainian rump state. Enduring low-level conflict like that of the past eight years in eastern Ukraine would give Russia the ability to choose to reactivate the war by Putin’s choice.

While an extended period of high-intensity fighting in the east will be most damaging for Ukraine, it also presents risks Putin. Russia’s military leaders now perhaps understand the nature of the war and the strength of Ukrainian resistance. Several observers have recently predicted this may lead to a more cautious approach because Russia cannot afford to have its military shortcomings become more apparent. After spending the past decade building up its armed forces at enormous expense, only for them to suffer shattering loses in the early stages of the Ukraine campaign, Russia’s generals will want to preserve their combat power for the next phase of their war on the west.

Whether the West likes it or not, Russia does not see this war with the west Putin has chosen as being limited only to Ukraine.

Thus, the decision by the former WarPac countries in NATO to arm Ukraine with Soviet heavy equipment, like the T-72 tanks the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania has provided, and the decision by Biden to provide U.S. artillery, is even more important than it seems. Putin cannot be allowed to claim anything that happens in the coming weeks to be “victory.” The Russian forces need to be defeated if there is going to be any progress from all of this. The western “unity” that Biden lauds is only “unitary” if Putin is not allowed to play any games. And the only way that happens is through an obvious defeat on the eastern Ukrainian steppe this next month.

That’s Another Fine Mess works because of the support of the paid subscribers. Please consider upgrading your support. Commentary is limited to the paid subscribers. Thank you for your support.