The head of Ukrainian military intelligence, Kyrilo Budanovrevealed this weekend at the 20th Yalta Conference on European Military Strategy that the Kremlin has set the deadline for achieving victory in Ukraine for early 2026. This calculation fits perfectly with the forecasts of the American think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, according to which Russia would run out of spare parts for certain types of Soviet weapons by that date at the current rate of attrition on the front.
In the absence of a full mobilization, for fear of causing a public outcry, Russia has been increasing the number of soldiers in its army, both professional and temporary, over the last two years to 2,389,000 men, 180,000 more than last December. The aim is to make up for the losses that are occurring in Ukraine with new partial mobilizations, more recruitment and to continue to stir up patriotism to find new volunteers.
The problem Russia faces is the sustainability of such an army in the short term. Too many soldiers with too few weapons is a bad combination.. The attacks are disjointed and the infantry is abused, as is being seen in Ukraine. Budanov believes that all these problems, together with the war fatigue itself and the feeling that it is not something foreign to Russian citizens – something they are already seeing in Kursk and would see in more places in the Russian Federation if Biden allowed long-distance attacks – can seriously damage the morale of the Russian population.
In this sense, Russia feels that it has to give its all in 2025 and achieve enough victories to consolidate that victory in 2026. According to Budanov, if Ukraine manages to hold out during those twelve months, that is, if international aid is maintained and does not falter – the American elections will have a lot to say about this – it will have a lot to gain because urgency will prevail in the Russian upper echelons, which will want to end the war almost by any means, as happened to the USSR in Afghanistan.
The Spanish
China, Brazil and Vance’s “peace” plan
What that victory will consist of and how peace will be achieved is another matter. It is clear that both sides are exhausted and that neither has shown enough strength to achieve a significant breakthrough. It is true that Russia continues to conquer small towns on a wide front, but it has not yet managed to expel the Ukrainians from Kursk, nor have these advances translated into a break that would break down local defences. We are facing a war of attrition in which victories are counted in very few square kilometers..
It is also clear that the rest of the world is fed up with the conflict. Fed up with nuclear threats, fed up with food inflation, fed up with the trade paralysis that a war in the very heart of Europe and facing the Black Sea represents… That is why in recent weeks various peace plans have been presented, notably the one signed by China and Brazil, which was a kind of “peace for territories”, that is, Russia would keep what it had conquered in these two and a half years, an international security zone would be established and Ukraine would keep the rest.
This is basically the Kremlin’s solution, as Zelensky pointed out last week… but it is also the solution of JD Vance, a possible future vice president of the United States, and we understand that, by extension, that of his boss Donald Trump. When the Republican candidate repeats over and over that “the war will end in a week” it is difficult to imagine a scenario other than the one that Russia sets. Favoring the strongest has always been the shortest way to end a conflict… and the least effective in the medium term.
La posibilidad de la implosión
El asunto es que Ucrania no está dispuesta a aceptar ningún acuerdo de ese tipo. Desde Kiev consideran que la guerra no dura desde febrero de 2022 sino desde 2014, cuando Rusia formó y armó unas guerrillas afines en Donetsk y Lugansk y las hizo combatir durante años contra el ejército regular ucraniano. Después de diez años de lucha y de decenas de miles de muertos, es difícil renunciar sin más a aquello por lo que has combatido, sería privarle de todo sentido. Solo un gobierno afín al Kremlin, como el que hubo hasta 2014 con Yanukovich o como el que quería imponer Putin en esta “operación militar especial” aceptaría algo así.
Zelenski, desde luego, no está por la labor. El presidente ucraniano afirmó su voluntad de presentar a Joe Biden lo que él llama un “plan de victoria”. En Kiev están convencidos de que la guerra se puede ganar o al menos creen que hay que proponer a los aliados una victoria para que no cunda el pesimismo. Los detalles de dicho plan se desconocen, pero hay que entender que van en la línea de lo apuntado por Budanov: desgastar a Rusia en lo posible, permitir el ataque a objetivos militares más allá de la frontera y confiar en un colapso social y económico que ahogue a Putin y le obligue a una retirada.
No parece, desde luego, algo sencillo. La experiencia de la propia guerra del Donbás lo demuestra: Ucrania lleva diez años sin conseguir recuperar las ciudades de Donetsk y Lugansk y sus alrededores. Pensar que puede hacerlo ahora parece demasiado optimista. Por otro lado, Rusia, tarde o temprano, tendrá que frenar la sangría. ¿Puede conquistar todo el Donbás? Puede, pero si ha tardado dos años en acercarse a Pokrovsk, es complicado verlos desfilar por Kramatorsk o Sloviansk en breve.
El problema, en cualquier caso, es la desconfianza. Ya hubo unos acuerdos de Minsk en 2015 y Rusia se los ventiló siete años más tarde. ¿Qué le impediría hacer lo mismo por segunda vez? Ahí harían falta garantías internacionales, pero Rusia exigirá siempre que Ucrania no entre en la OTAN… y si la OTAN no intermedia, tarde o temprano, Putin intentará terminar su obra. Por las “buenas”, influyendo en el proceso electoral de turnos o por las “malas” como hasta ahora. Rendirse, para Kiev, no solo sería una deshonra, sino una pérdida de tiempo: Putin no entiende de compromisos y no perdona las muestras de debilidad.
Add Comment