The New York Times examines various predictions about the duration of the Russian-Ukrainian war. The fastest way to the end of the war lies through a peaceful settlement, the newspaper writes, but currently neither side is interested in this. Ukraine wants to gain more advantageous positions on the battlefield, and the Russian Federation, it seems, has not changed its goals in Ukraine. If Kyivʼs counteroffensive, backed by Western weapon systems, is successful, Putin may make concessions. According to the representative of the US Ministry of Defense, in order to go beyond the borders of Donbas, Putin will have to announce a mass mobilization — a step he has so far avoided. On the other hand, an unsuccessful counteroffensive will be critical for Ukraine: it will lose both advantages in combat and diplomatic leverage. The third scenario is that Ukraine succeeds and claims to return the territories that the Kremlin declares to be part of Russia. Then Putin can use nuclear or chemical weapons. As for the Westʼs next steps, the publication quotes Dmytro Kuleba, who insists on increasing aid to Ukraine as "the key to Europeʼs long-term security," and a number of Western authors who believe that aid should be conditioned by diplomatic demands and, ultimately, push Ukraine to negotiations with the Russian Federation.
Rajan Menon and Daniel DePetris, experts in the field of defense and security, in an essay on Politico write about the low probability of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in the foreseeable future. This war is not like other recent wars, which have lasted an average of about three months — and although it seems that both sides are suffering losses and would gladly take advantage of a truce, this is not the case. Supporters of a diplomatic settlement insist that Ukraine should initiate the negotiation process as soon as possible — however, according to Menon and DePetris, it is clear why the parties are not ready for negotiations. After all, Putin still believes in his victory, hopes for the weakening of Western support for Ukraine, and believes that Russia will cope well with the sanctions. On the other hand, President Zelensky believes that time is on Ukraineʼs side, and it is worth hoping that US military aid will continue. Ukrainians are also more motivated and, according to polls, not ready to cede territory for the sake of peace. A protracted war will intensify the political, humanitarian and economic crisis in the world — but this is not enough to push the parties to negotiations. So, the authors conclude, for now the continuation of the war is the best option for both sides.
In an essay on Foreign Policy, Professor of Management Practice Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Director of Research at the Yale Institute of Leadership Steven Tian write about the possibility of increasing sanctions pressure on the Russian Federation. The authors draw attention to the widespread opinion that sanctions against the Russian Federation are "counterproductive" and "useless", and decided to check whether this is so. A team of 42 Yale researchers analyzed 10 successful cases, including the downfall of the regimes of Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet, Nicolae Ceausescu and others, when a combination of private sector and government sanctions were used against authoritarian regimes. Based on the analysis, the authors reached three main conclusions. First of all, the sanctions should be as complete as possible — although in the case of complete isolation of the Russian Federation, China may come to its aid, so far there are no signs of such a step. In the first four months of 2022, Chinese exports to Russia fell by more than 50%, the authors write. Second, government sanctions must be backed up by voluntary actions by the private sector, such as voluntary exits. And, thirdly, government sanctions should be comprehensive and apply to various sectors and countries — this is better than "surgical" overlapping of strategic sectors of the economy.