Before Vladimir Putin launched his offensive against Ukraine on February 24, he had a very clear scenario in mind: the invasion should be completed within a few days. Today, after three months of conflict, it is difficult to say with certainty how the war might end.
>> War in Ukraine: Follow the situation live
Given the current state of forces, goals and difficulties, what trajectories could the conflict take? Which are the most likely? Several specialists have examined various scenarios for franceinfo.
Ukraine repels the offensive with Western support and wins the war
This is the scenario that the supporters of Kiev have dreamed up. NATO has been raising hopes of late: the Ukrainian army has succeeded in regaining control of Kharkiv, the country’s second-largest city in the north-east. She herself launched a counter-offensive in the direction of Izium, south-east of Kharkiv. The Russian army continues to make tactical mistakes, such as crossing the Donets River, which led to the destruction of at least 73 tanks, according to the Ukrainian army quoted by AP*. It could also be short of vital workers when its soldiers reach the end of their military service.
But what would victory really mean for Ukraine? Would a return to the pre-February 24 situation be enough? Apparently not: “We hope that Crimea will become part of Ukraine,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the Wall Street Journal on May 3. For Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Maliar, quoted by the Financial Times*, the goal is “the complete cleansing of our country and the establishment of sovereignty [ukrainienne] within its borders”, which includes Crimea and the eastern provinces of Donbass, Ukrainian territories controlled by Russia and pro-Russian separatists respectively since 2014.
However, recovering these areas could be extremely difficult from a military point of view. “These areas have been in conflict for eight years, the separatists and the Russian soldiers know the terrain, they have had time to strengthen their positions,” explains Christine Dugoin-Clément, researcher at the IAE’s Risks Chair, to franceinfo Paris Sorbonne Business School. A Ukrainian counter-offensive could therefore be very costly in terms of lives and materiel – one of the reasons why Ukraine continues to increase and continuously request military support.
Russia wins the war by “economic” and military suffocation of Ukraine
For its part, Moscow is making progress in several areas, such as around Severodonetsk in the Donbass. It reproduces on other cities the siege strategy successfully pursued against Mariupol (constant bombardments and blocking of Ukrainian supplies), and it continues to attack strategic points of Ukraine (ammunition depots, railways or power plants). The Russian army has also learned the lessons of its failure in Kyiv: By withdrawing to its own territory, it avoids stretching its supply chains too far, which makes it less vulnerable.
The knockout punch could come from the wallet. At the same time, Russia is implementing a strategy of “economic smothering” of Ukraine, according to Carole Grimaud-Potter, lecturer in Russian geopolitics at Paul Valéry University in Montpellier.
“Ukraine’s economic centers are in the east and on the Black Sea coast, which Russia controls or blocks, including the port of Odessa.”
Carole Grimaud-Potter, lecturer in Russian geopolitics at the Paul Valéry University in Montpellier
at franceinfo
So many elements to suggest that Ukraine might concede in the end. That scenario could be accelerated by an easing of Western support, which Mathieu Boulègue, associate researcher for think-tank Chatham House’s Russia and Eurasia program, says is “key to Ukraine’s resistance.” The economic costs of war could prevent the United States and Europe from continuing their financial and military support. European unity is already showing the first cracks: Hungary is defending itself against tougher sanctions against Russian oil for fear of energy outages.
But this scenario also has flaws in the eyes of analysts who point to resistance from Ukrainian troops on the ground. “Russia does not have the resources to carry out long-term, high-intensity operations,” says Mathieu Boulègue, who recalls that Russian troops failed to take the city of Kyiv.
The war begins and neither side wins.
This explains why the most frequently mentioned perspective is that of an ongoing conflict. “The lines could stabilize around the territorial borders of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts,” estimates Mathieu Boulègue.
“It will not be a ‘frozen conflict’: there will be tactical moves, breakthroughs and defenses on both sides. But the situation can drag on for ten, twenty, thirty years as long as Moscow doesn’t get enough territory to present it as a victory.”
Mathieu Boulègue, Associate Researcher at the Chatham House Think Tank
at franceinfo
The opposite of Blitzkrieg that Vladimir Putin was hoping for on February 24. But the Kremlin is used to protracted wars. Carole Grimaud-Potter draws a parallel to the war in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989: “The USSR at that time already had far too big goals in relation to its troop strength, it had not planned the extent of the resistance, it had not succeeded in attracting international support to block.”
But Moscow doesn’t have the means to hold out forever either. International sanctions threaten to wreck its economy, and the cost of war is growing by the day, both human and economic: Russia has been spending more than $300 million a day on its army, according to the Russian Defense Ministry quoted by The Moscow Times*.
Peace negotiations are finally successful
Because of this, Ukraine, like Russia, may decide to find a way out through negotiations. At the moment, the chances are slim: the talks have been suspended since May 17th. Moscow points to a “total lack of will” in Kiev, and Ukraine accuses Russia of persisting in “pigeonholing.” However, Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to send positive signals: “There are things that we can only achieve at the negotiating table,” said the Ukrainian President on the Ukrainian broadcaster ICTV. But as long as the dynamics of the war can be favorable for Kyiv, the negotiations are unlikely to be successful in the eyes of the researchers interviewed: “Ukraine currently has the opportunity to make up ground, even if it is in small tones, and it wants it reconquer occupied territories,” explains Christine Dugoin-Clément.
“A truce might just be a pause while waiting for the right moment to restart an offensive.”
Christine Dugoin-Clément, Associate Researcher at Paris-Sorbonne Business School
at franceinfo
“For its part, Moscow is a prisoner of its own rhetoric,” says Mathieu Boulègue. “Russia has sold its people a ‘three-day war’, total military superiority. It can’t admit that things aren’t going well. And basically, his overarching goal remains complete subjugation of Ukraine.” “There is little chance that Russia will return Crimea to Ukraine,” adds Christine Dugoin-Clément, which is nonetheless one of Kyiv’s goals.
With such irreconcilable stances, “we are likely to endure a period of alternate ceasefires, unsuccessful negotiations and resumption of fighting,” according to Carole Grimaud-Potter. “What the Donbass has experienced since 2014 and from which we have not come out.”
Russia is spreading the conflict to neighboring countries
A protracted conflict is a higher risk of slipping. “The possibility of the conflict spreading to neighboring countries cannot be ruled out,” said Emmanuel Macron May 19th. A Russian missile that would fall on NATO territory, nuclear threats that would be carried out “by mistake, out of tiredness or out of frustration… We have to imagine the broadest possible scenarios so as not to be faced with a fait accompli with no answer”. , reflects Mathieu Boulègue.
But a nuclear escalation remains unlikely in the eyes of experts. “It would endanger the stability of the regime itself, which is the main goal of Vladimir Putin’s system,” says the researcher. Responding to the NATO membership process launched by Finland and Sweden, Russia’s foreign minister said only that it “wouldn’t make much of a difference,” according to Reuters*. A limited response compared to previous threats which, according to Carole Grimaud-Potter, “suggests if not appeasement, at least influencing Russian discourse”. For the researcher “People would not understand why it would be necessary to open other fronts, and Russia does not have the means to do so.”
Regime change is coming to Moscow
A Russian population that could rebel against Vladimir Putin? “This man cannot stay in power,” Joe Biden said, implying that this scenario is being considered by Ukraine’s allies.
In fact, “anti-war sentiment is growing” in Russia, says Carole Grimaud-Potter: “Even more pro-Russian bloggers have criticized the disastrous failure of the Donets crossing. Between that and the weight of the economic sanctions, we can see Russian society collapsing.” Recently, even a former colonel on Russian state television pointed out the difficulties of the offensive, as reported by L’Express (paid article).
But few really believe in a scenario of internal revolt. “Any attempt to denounce the war is punishable by imprisonment,” recalls Carole Grimaud-Potter. And regardless of the sanctions: “The Russian leadership is not interested in the well-being of its people,” judges Mathieu Boulègue, for whom a change in the ruling elites will take years. “Everything that comes after Vladimir Putin doesn’t necessarily get better,” he said. One of the many unknowns in a conflict whose outcome is still uncertain.
* These links point to content in English.