It’s easy to say May 9th.
There is a rumor that everything will end in Ukraine on May 9th. But we need to be clear about one thing: stopping a war requires two things. The will of one side, and the will of the other. I mean one thing: that a retreat while the opponent fights and has skill easily becomes a rout.
Let's start from the beginning: assessing what the situation is on the pitch all depends on a small number, that is, the number of Russian losses. There are two sensible estimates, if we leave out the propaganda: they range from 7,000 dead to 15,000 dead. And considering three wounded (unable to fight) for every dead, we are talking about figures ranging from 28,000 Russians to 60,000 Russians unable to fight. Out of a total of approximately 180,000 employed in the war.
This spectrum between 7,000 and 15,000 is important. Why'?
- if the estimate is 7000 dead plus 3X wounded is true, the Russian army is still able to defend itself and fight, but it can no longer attack. In this case, it is still dangerous, but its existence in Ukraine is precarious. It can still hold out (if supplied) but can no longer attack important targets without very large reinforcements. But it would be difficult for the Ukrainians to drive him out. But the thing that matters is that it CANNOT cover a retreat without a treaty or a ceasefire.
- if the true estimate is 15,000 dead plus 3X wounded, the Russian army is no longer in combat order. It means that any confrontation with Ukrainian troops ends in Russian defeat. It has little mobility, suffers from hunger and lack of means, and has constant desertions. It can slowly withdraw, and a treaty or ceasefire is needed on the Ukrainian side.
This is the main reason they do the only thing they can: bomb cities. But the truth is, if you were at war in a foreign country you would much rather bomb enemy soldiers. They bomb cities because they don't know where to bomb enemy soldiers, they kill civilians because they can't kill the military. That's all.
Commentators who claim Ukrainians are short on men say nonsense. No guerrilla army, which controls 80% of the nation's land, a very agricultural nation, is exhausted after just one month. Moreover, the Russians have given the Ukrainians vast advance to prepare, and let's not forget that the Ukrainians have been forming an army for the stay behind for eight years. The Russian idea of "hitting their stocks" is ridiculous, they will be pulverized in tens of thousands of small warehouses. The ones that hit the hardest will be arms factories. But certainly not the stocks.
For eight years the Ukrainians took conscripts and sent them to Dombass. So they have a huge number of reservists who just need to be armed and "refreshed". Of course their president wants more guns, and better guns: that's his job. But in all likelihood the creator of this stay behind strategy has weapons and food aside for another three or four months. In addition, 80% of the Ukraina not captured by the Russians will gladly supply them. Plus supplies arrive from the west.
Furthermore, there is a huge difference between the needs of an army like the Russian one, and one that wages guerilla warfare, or high insensitivity war of friction: they are less sensitive to losses. A ten-man squadron who lost four people reinstated him with four other people. Getting thirty thousand troops back into a 100,000 army is much more difficult.
Obviously these losses will be redistributed more or less randomly, so there will be areas where the Russians are still strong and areas where they have patches up their asses.
Under these conditions, Putin says "here, on May 9 we are retiring and we will keep only the dombass".
Funny. And what will they do, retreat while a pissed-off, operational army still shoots at them? If there's a recipe for disaster, this is it.
So you have to realize one thing: the way the war is going, Putin needs a ceasefire to close it. If not a peace agreement. Because otherwise, under these conditions, his retreat will become a rout.
It means never seeing his troops again.
But even saying "let's cease fire and I'll take the Dombass" is not enough, because in the end, immediately after the Russians had left the northern areas, all the Ukrainian forces, pissed off as I don't know what, would rush on Dombass. There is no need for a simple ceasefire to "remove all troops except those in the dombass". We need a real peace treaty.
Putin will soon begin to offer a peace treaty in order to get his army out of the quagmire. Because a retreat during such a war, with no clear air superiority, is simply an invitation to the Ukrainians to slaughter their army. Even ordinary citizens will start shooting at him. In a retreat, one of the two exposes his back to the other.
I don't know what Putin's plans are to be able to secure a retreat by 9 May.
But let's also assume that May 9 is the right term. Then Putin
- he hopes to close the game in Dombass on 9 May. And what does he do then? And how does he prevent all of Ukraine from closing in on artichoke against Dombass?
- do you hope for a ceasefire or a truce to withdraw the men from the dombass?
And even if it did, who exactly obeys the truce? I don't want to go into the discussion "but are nationalist fanatics Nazis?". The difference between a fanatic nationalist and a Nazi is less than epsilon: it is always very difficult to distinguish them.
But the question is: will the Azov battalion bow to the ceasefire? And the other formations of nationalist fanatics and "territorial defenses"? And if he doesn't, will he capture the masses of volunteers who are fighting (and gaining experience) today?
Because there is also the case of a Ukrainian government declaring a ceasefire, and the fanatics who continue to fight.
In this case the results can be two, and it all depends on the numerino (the number of losses) that I discussed above:
- if the Russian army is only depleted but still in combat order, the retreat will be a catastrophe but limited, with a peace treaty or a truce, essentially feasible.
- if the Russian army is no longer in combat order, the retreat will still be a horrendous slaughter and very few soldiers will return, whether there is a truce or not.
Then one wonders what would happen after 9 May. Imagine a little bit that there is a peace treaty. If Putin really needs to retire on May 9, and Dombass is enough for him to sing victory, and Zelensky in turn wants to stop the war, then the treaty will not be so unbalanced on the Russian side. If this is the goal, it is Putin who needs a ceasefire. But let's also assume that a ceasefire / peace is made.
Zelensky could call for a humanitarian mission of aid to the population and of reconstruction on the part of NATO / EU. Obviously covered by adequate military forces. And once peace is made, he can also invoke a no-fly zone, because there is no danger of clashes. Having N NATO soldiers (plus maybe someone from the UN) on his territory, he can also join NATO, nothing changes. And Putin can't do anything about it.
But the problem for Putin is double: "what the fuck are you celebrating on May 9, when half the army you sent back has returned to you, and on the other side there are people celebrating the victory over the Nazis?".
This is the reason I DON'T believe the May 9th story. And I don't even believe that Russia will be satisfied with Dombass. It is in the situation of those predators that, once bitten, are forced to swallow. Even if the prey is too large, or too deadly.
It's easy to say May 9th.