When being right feels wrong A reflection on the Ukraine war

There’s a phrase, "I pray to God that I am wrong." It’s often used when making grim predictions. Now feels like the right moment to recall it, especially when reflecting on the views I expressed in the early days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as written in my articles for Caliber.Az.

The reader familiar with the cryptic scribblings of your humble servant might think that I am engaging in some Nostradamus-style predictions. "Here he got it right, there he missed it." No. This is the first instance where I will simply state that my interpretation of the scenario in the Russo-Ukrainian war turned out to be accurate. One could add "unfortunately," but it hardly changes anything.

From the beginning, it was clear to me that despite the willingness of many citizens to sacrifice themselves, Ukraine would not be able to sustain a long-term confrontation. I wrote this repeatedly. The reasons for this could be discussed for hours, but at their core, they come down to simple factors: population size and the political tolerance threshold of the country’s citizens.

The exact number of Russian military casualties in the war in Ukraine remains unknown, but the figures are significant. There have been heavy losses in equipment as well. However, neither the army’s irrecoverable losses (mainly from citizens living in the federation’s subjects) nor the grinding down of hastily recruited prisoners and workers arriving in Russia have disrupted daily life to any great extent. Western sanctions haven’t had the expected effect. Economists might debate their long-term impact, but they failed to put a significant dent in the average Russian’s wallet, and thus, the potential for mass protests calling for an end to the war didn’t materialize. On the contrary, Russians are reinvesting funds that once flowed to the West. Instead of purchasing more villas or boutiques in Italy, oligarchs are now building hotels and restaurants in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other cities. There has been no mass migration to avoid military service. There has been no societal rift, though there is a sense of unrest. Many Russians are vehemently opposed to the idea of “bowing down to Kyiv.” The latter, by the way, despite all due respect, is not without its own faults—some unnecessary decisions and actions have sparked irritation and, eventually, fury in the Kremlin. After all, as the saying goes, "don’t stir up trouble when it’s quiet." Some may argue that trouble is never quiet, but still…

As for Ukraine, I fear the situation is dire. Criticize Moscow as much as you want, but the Russians are winning. Not as quickly or decisively as many expected, nor with the same arrogance they once had, but they are inexorably advancing. And, as a recent spokesperson for the new occupant of the White House stated, Ukraine’s main problem is a lack of people. From day one, it was clear that no one would fight for the Ukrainians (just as no one fought for Georgia in 2008). Today, they face the grim dilemma of lowering the conscription age from 25 to 20, or even 18, which, in a country already bearing severe human losses, could have a devastating impact on its gene pool. This is where one might exclaim, “This will show its effects later!” But if not, there simply won’t be anyone left to fight, and all the sacrifices and suffering will have been in vain.

Another unfortunate but undeniable truth: the world is growing tired of Ukraine. Whether it is right or wrong no longer matters to many. The idea that Ukraine is defending Europe from the Russian threat is now viewed with scepticism by some. A case in point is the relationship between Kyiv and Bratislava. Yes, the Slovaks, like everyone else, understand that Ukraine has been a victim of aggression, and they sympathize with the casualties. But Slovakia has its own citizens to worry about, and they are the priority for the country’s leaders. They need to stay warm, and for that, gas is essential—specifically Russian gas. The lack of gas presents a significant problem, especially in light of the ongoing issues with Ukraine.

Endless financial aid, massive supplies of weapons to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, millions of Ukrainian refugees scattered around the world (many of whom have no intention of returning), a shattered economy, mines, unexploded ordnance, and additional lost territories – this is the grim summary of the war for Ukraine. Should Kyiv have surrendered in the first hours? Should they have raised the white flag? Of course not. But they also shouldn’t have deluded themselves into thinking that they could "defeat Russia." Where are those sages now who promised the world that Ukraine would be the grave of the Russian Empire? Some have fallen on the battlefield, others "fight" in think tanks in the US, the UK, and elsewhere. Some are silent, while others still make noise in Kyiv.

Many point to Donald Trump’s influence on Ukraine’s fate. Donald likely has his own “Trumpian” view on Ukraine, as he does on everything else. But he’s not alone in this perspective. The U.S. president, with his bombastic style, brings to light everything that many think but don’t dare say. Those who did dare were demonized and cast aside, either as "losers" or "servants of the Kremlin." With Trump, this won’t work; he’ll throw anyone under the bus. Now, President Zelensky is talking about readiness for peace, about the possibility of freeing some territories later, and so on. If nothing extraordinary happens (though, frankly, everything has already crossed the line), Ukraine will have to make painful compromises. In the process, it will have to rebuild a country that is essentially in ruins. And while I personally have deep sympathy for our Ukrainian friends and genuinely feel for them, I can’t help but ask: I understand the need to defend one’s homeland, but could this most disastrous scenario have been avoided?

I’ll end somewhat immodestly – “I told you so!”