And if the Russians were to break through into Ukraine?
The dramatic events in the Middle East have somewhat overshadowed the other war that has been going on in Ukraine for over two years. The fear that the Ukrainian war might escalate into a direct clash between Russia and NATO, a very remote event nonetheless, has been overshadowed by the actual widening of the conflict between HAMAS and Israel, which seems to be bringing about a general war throughout the Middle East.
But what would happen if the Russians were to break through the Ukrainian front? It's a question that worries everyone, especially in Europe.
But is a complete rout of the Ukrainian army really possible? At the moment, a general collapse of Ukraine does not seem conceivable to us. One could also think that the Ukrainians, to solicit aid, dramatize their situation: the Russians are only advancing here and there by a few kilometers. At most, one could think of a Caporetto from which one could recover, but not a rout like the Egyptian one in the Six-Day War.
Russia lacks the means and the capacity, as shown in the last two years, which the Israelis or Americans had in the Gulf Wars. If the Russians were to break through the Ukrainian lines, then the Western powers, and particularly the Americans, would return to supply the Ukrainians who would then stop the Russians. It has been two years of positional warfare, and it is not clear who could truly win it.
What the war in Ukraine has shown is that Russia has outdated technology compared to the West. I would also add that heroism, the willingness to sacrifice, counts for little compared to technology, and this was already clear in World War II: the fact that the Japanese preferred to die rather than surrender did not save them from defeat by the Americans, who were less heroic but more technologically advanced. Russia attacked with the idea that they would take control of Kiev and install a friendly government in a few days. The enterprise seemed possible but was poorly executed, with incapable and unprepared forces.
The Russians then made an irreparable error in their image. They should have presented themselves as a fraternal army, liberating them from foreign (Western) influence. Instead, they acted with a ferocity, with inhuman cruelty that exacerbated, beyond all limits, the hatred that Ukrainians already felt towards them. Thinking that the Russian army could actually control a nation as vast as Ukraine, twice the size of Italy, with such a hostile population, does not seem possible. In the first months of the invasion, the Ukrainians resisted with valor and pushed back the Russians with weapons received from the West (let's say from America). Then the Russians invaded the Russian-speaking regions but were blocked by the Ukrainians always with Western weapons. At this point, the war, about two years ago, was over: an armistice would have saved two years of immense death and destruction. The Ukrainians, trusting in American weapons, then thought they could DEFEAT Russia (not just stop it) but they failed, as predictable. America then slowed down, having no real interest in defeating Russia, and the shadow of Trump appeared as a possible successor to Biden, who was anything but eager to engage too much in distant wars.
After more than two years, Ukrainian soldiers are now exhausted and need to be replaced, and their number would need to be significantly increased, but the fundamental problem is that wars are now decided by advanced technology. Generally, in history, armies have always been formed by professionals, few in percentage compared to populations. Only in the last century, in the World Wars, there were armies of tens of millions of conscripts. Now there is a lack of means to arm millions of men. Mussolini already spoke of five million bayonets and did not realize that wars were no longer fought with bayonets: now weapons cost ten times what they did then. Currently, the means are sophisticated, complex, expensive; so a limited number of men capable of using them are needed. If the Americans, as it seems, slow down the supplies, it is very difficult for Europeans to effectively take their place.
On the other hand, the idea that Russia, after Ukraine, could attack NATO countries, and that defending Ukraine means preventing a Russian attack (the example of Munich in '38 is given) appears increasingly unfounded, a simple propaganda ploy. Not only would Russia have no reason to attack NATO countries, but above all, it would absolutely not have the capacity: if only military aid to Ukraine was enough to stop the Russians, how could they hope to face the entire NATO apparatus? It is an evident, undeniable fact. Then one should think about the frightening possibility of resorting to atomic weapons, a remedy that has prevented a conflict between NATO and the USSR for 60 years.
The only solution then is to go back to two years ago: Ukraine cedes to Russia some province, already devastated and already in revolt, Russia is content because it is not able to conquer Ukraine and then especially to maintain it. Both can then say they have won: you need to know how to win, you need to know how to lose.
This would be reasonable, then in wars follies flare up uncontrollably."