Ukraina, or of the 4D War
August von Mackensen wrote that war does not simply consist in invading a certain area and dominating it: it is also necessary to occupy the future of that area, that is to invade the dimension of time as well, because if the future of an occupied area is a problem , you could have saved yourself the trouble of occupying it.
This is a maxim that should be remembered to better understand what is happening in Ukraine.
On the one hand, the Russians are focusing on the feasible. Unable to really win, with an army that has turned out to be a bluff, they are occupying all the places already disputed by the pro-Russian militias, that is, Russia is tipping the scales of a conflict already in existence since 2014. It's not really a win, but it's easy to sell it as such.
Putin would need more means and a total mobilization in Russia (so as to recall reserve soldiers), a mobilization that he cannot do because (incredibly he cares about it) he knows that it would put the population at a disadvantage. He would need an excuse, such as "Westerners arm the Ukrainians abbestia", but as long as four himars are given to ukraina 4 on duty, a general mobilization is not credible.
(Obviously we don't know how many Himars have been given. And personally I wouldn't bet on such small amounts. It doesn't stop an army with four pieces of artillery anyway.)
But the problem with Putin's "after" is that he cannot see it. It has invaded the richest part of Ukraine, but it is an area that is rich only by Ukrainian standards. The total GDP of Ukraine is that of the Veneto, and with all the destruction that took place those areas are worth little, (then there is always the one who tells you that oil, palladium, or sarcazzo what: places have been in misery).
The industries are backward, even more than the Russian ones, many are destroyed, the ports mined. Russia will have to rebuild infrastructure and cities all over again, at its own expense, and get the economy going. He knows he can't do it.
And as if that weren't enough, he knows that at that point the military will have to go home and tell the truth. As happened in Afghanistan.
Putin cannot imagine the "after", even if he invades Dombass and Luhansk.
Then there is Ukraine itself: the Ukrainians are forcing the Russians to destroy their own targets. As the British intelligence also pointed out, instead of a strategic retreat that would have stretched Russian logistics, they prefer to send light infantry groups into the cities (which at that point are destroyed by the Russians) and then flee. That it is deliberate is testified by the fact that the escape is always well prepared, and almost always works perfectly well. These are advanced tactics that aim to fight in the cities, which then the Russian artillery devastates. Scorched earth, but let the enemy do the dirty work.
In this way, Putin is conquering rubble, bombed-out industries (Ukrainian soldiers almost always hide there) and a population that silently accuses them of the massacres.
Putin realizes this, but he has no choice because that is the military doctrine of his armed forces, so he can only collaborate with the destruction of disputed cities.
But we must be clear: this only makes sense for the Ukrainians if it is clear that those areas will then be taken by the Russians.
Ukraine, that is, does not have a very great vision of the aftermath: knowing that those areas will rebel in Kiev anyway, that there are pro-Russian warlords, what purpose is to take back areas already lost in 2014?
They do not have a vision of Dombass for the "after".
Zelensky is a separate matter. And I say this because he used the powers of war to replace people, he used the same powers to ban pro-Russian political parties, and he used the same powers to block the communist parties (which are not all pro-Russian).
He is not, it seems, a convinced liberal democrat. He is one who has used the powers of war to eliminate people in his entourage. And he knows well that when the war ends he will have to stop, and if he wants the European money for the reconstruction he will have to have implemented the requests of the EU, including laws against corruption and laws against the oligarchs, who also infest Ukraine.
And here we see one thing: after banning pro-Russian parties, if Zelensky resumed Dombass which is full of Russians, would the Russians of Dombass find themselves unable to form a party that represents them? Obviously those would have recourse to a European court: it is as if pro-Austrian parties in Trentino were banned in Italy.
In short, not even Zelensky has an idea of what he would do with the Dombass if he were to win it back. It can't invade it because it can't invade its future. Even if he resumed it, his movement in the European direction would lead him to collide with his own laws, which prohibit this or that party.
And then, he would find himself spending money that he does not have to rebuild, or moving towards the EU which would finance the reconstruction, but a great deal would end up in already obsolete companies, and benefiting an already pro-Russian and Russian-speaking population.
The other party involved is the EU. Which has promised (as a carrot for the UKraini fighters) about 750 billion of "reconstruction". Clearly for this figure the Ukrainians will continue to fight, anticipating the moment when their streets will be golden.
And I say this because pre-war Ukraine had a GDP similar to the Veneto, but without dombass and the rest, it would almost drop to Basilicata's GDP. Throwing 750 billion over it, that is half of the Italian GDP, is a HUGE promise.
But not even the EU can imagine the “after” of such an operation.
- such a "reconstruction" (about three times the PNRR) is sufficient to cause IMMENSE migratory flows, both by emptying the Dombass (which will certainly not develop at the same pace under the Russian heel), and Moldova and Belarus, with peaks of arrivals also from Bulgaria and Romania.
- such an investment must be defended. But since any truce the Russians accept will include Ukraine outside NATO, who will go to defend it? Any answer does not make anyone happy.
But even if we do, here we also have trouble for Putin: he would find himself in the same situation as the USSR when people from East Berlin were trying to get to West Berlin. If the western part of Ukraine really received 750 billion euros from the EU, with a GDP growth of … absurd numbers, and on the other side of the border with Russia they lived as they will live after the war, it is obvious that the Dombass would empty almost immediately.
And Putin is afraid of the empty land idea: demographics are a problem in Russia.
NATO also has no clear idea of the future. Unless Russia disintegrates, the war in Ukraine cannot end. If it ends:
- Putin would have free troops to move to defend Kaliningrad.
- Since any peace treaty with Russia would prohibit Ukrainians from joining NATO, NATO itself would have to delegate the defense of Ukraine to someone else, ie step aside.
And therefore not even NATO can imagine a possible peace.
The war, therefore, cannot end, because no one has really conquered the territories in all the required dimensions, that is, no one has yet taken possession of the future of those territories.
Nobody is able to control what will happen AFTER a possible truce, or the peace treaty that comes at the end of the wars.
Under these conditions, the war cannot end.