THE CRAZY WAY THE WAR MIGHT END

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko 

by Colin Liddell

The main problem in the World is status hunger. History proves that you can treat people like shit, but as long as they have a feeling of having a little status, they will generally be satisfied. However, status is not always as easy to dispense as the more basic necessities.

The problem gets worse with nations, especially nations involved in wars, as winning and losing wars always marks a drastic shift in status. In fact, this is probably the main reason that wars are fought; not really because of lebensraum, natural resources, defending democracy, reclaiming ancient territory, or all the reasons usually given.

This takes us to the present conflict in the Ukraine. You can go on about the Donbas, the Crimea, "muh internationally recognised borders," "denazification," "defending democracy," stopping Putler, etc. But what we're really seeing here are two entities locked in a tussle over status. The thing that keeps the war going ultimately is the fear of losing this.

Due to the way the war has worked out, it is now difficult for either side to lose. We have been here before. Look at the Allies versus the Central Powers in World War One. The optimum solution there would have been for each side to realise the horrendous cost of the war after the first year, and then to have just come to a sensible peace deal. But what kept them hammering away for another three years, at great cost to all involved, was their reluctance to lose status. In the end they all lost status and much more.

Likewise in the case of Russia and Ukraine. Putin's "Schlieffen Plan" (his 3-day Special Military Operation) clearly failed, as did his plans B and C, but admitting this and returning to pre-bellum borders would have been a loss of status for both him and his Ukrainian counterparts. For the Ukraine to allow this, combined with the running sore of Russia's existing occupation of part of its territories, would be identical to a man letting someone walk away after they had slapped him twice in the face.

For these reasons the war has had to continue, and could go on for another two or three years at least.

So, for the war to end, either both countries need to embellish their status in some way, or one has to decisively defeat the other. As we have already observed, a decisive victory will probably be bloody and take time. So, is there a way for both countries to come out of this with a gain in status?

Yes there is, if both countries can gain territory.

Obviously, this means it can't be the contested territory, namely the Crimea, the Donbass, and the connecting Kherson Corridor. This land has to return to Ukraine, so that the Ukrainian state has a gain in status rather than a loss. But, as widely recognized, this would be a massive blow to Putin's prestige and the status of Russia, especially giving up the Crimea. "Much better to throw another 100,000 or 200,000 lives into the meat grinder than to let that happen."

But what if Russia could gain territory elsewhere? Then Putin wouldn't look like such a loser, and could even present himself as a winner. This brings us to Belarus, an unloved piece of swamp and forest to the North of Ukraine.

There has already been plenty of speculation about Belarus, one day in the not so distant future, amalgamating, merging, and unifying with the Putinist state. This may or may not happen. I suspect many Belarussians would be horrified by the prospect, and much more inclined to look to the West. But even if one views such a union as an historical trend or inevitability, it hasn't happened yet and on paper Belarus is still very much a separate country.

So, if Belarus could, in some way, be thrown onto the scales of a peace settlement and used to "compensate" Russia for the "loss" of the territories formerly stolen from the Ukraine, then, that would give Russia (and of course Putin and his gang) a status-salving exit from a war they have got so badly wrong. Few people in the West would care one way or the other about Belarus, which they already see as "in Putin's pocket" anyway.

Possibly the Kremlin might already know all this. The calculations could already have been made. They might be thinking along these lines: 

"We're too weak to defeat the mighty Ukrainians, especially the Ukrainians backed up by their friends in the West. In fact we're too weak to even grind them down at a rate of two-and-a-half dead Russians for every dead Ukrainian. Also, if we keep doing this, the people at home -- even our own dumb, stupid, passive, bovine population -- might rebel." 

Based on this, the Kremlin might already see Belarus as its exit strategy, along these lines:

"Yes it sucks, I know, to give up the Crimea and the Donbas. But if we don't we could end up on meat hooks, and, of course, Belarus is a much bigger territory then the Crimea. Adding that to our kleptocracy will definitely make us look good. We'll still be chads. It won't be too hard to dress this up as a victory, even with most of the Russian army and the Wagner group planted in the Ukrainian soil."

Might not this be the reason why Belarus's president Lukashenko has just been admitted to a hospital after a recent visit to his "old friend" at the Kremlin?

Follow @cbliddell

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).