It was on these very foundations that the Camp David peace process was initiated, with Egypt recognizing Israel's existence, Amman abandoning its territorial claims on the West Bank annexed in 1950, and peace with Jordan. If Ukraine were to face a potential collapse of its army or even of its statehood, such an outcome would not be unreasonable and would constitute the "bare minimum acceptable" for Kyiv. This return to the status quo ante bears resemblance to the outcome of the 1965 Indo-Pakistani war over Kashmir, hence the “Kashmir” scenario.
Russian Conquest: the "Crimea" scenario
In a third scheme, Moscow would successfully conquer the whole of "New Russia'', from the Donbass to the west of Crimea, and consolidate its positions. This would come at a high cost. Russia would then offer a cease-fire conditioned by a so-called "territorial compromise" in Kyiv. Mr. Putin could only do this if, at the very least, the army controlled the whole of the two self-proclaimed Donbass republics (which was not the case before February 24). Moreover, if Russia were to annex either of these regions, as it did with Crimea in 2014, any Western-backed Ukrainian offensive from Moscow's point of view would then become an "attack on Russian territory". This scenario remains unlikely as long as Ukrainian resistance capacity exceeds Russia's human and material mobilization capacity ashas been the case since February 24. And if it were to happen, case studies from Cyprus, the Middle East, South Asia or the Korean peninsula do not suggest that it would guarantee stability.
Ukrainian Reconquest: the "Croatia" scenario
This is why by all means, the scenario which would see the progressive material and moral collapse of the Russian army remains most likely. As a French expert Philippe Gros reminds us, "this war is that of an expeditionary ground force against a nation in arms that has declared general mobilization. Their ability to replace men, or even just relieve them to rest, is not the same".
Skip to main content
Add new comment