Dr. Mark Harrison is an Emeritus Professor of Economics at the Department of Economics, Warwick University. Among his research interests are economic history, defence and security, Russia, and the post-Soviet bloc. Dr. Harrison is also a Fellow of the British Academy.
What do you think about the latest conflict developments in Ukraine?
I do not see much change. Small shifts in territorial control are more important for the psychology on each side than for the military balance. This is because the core process of the war is attrition. What matters materially is the rate at which each side is being forced to use up the lives and equipment available to it. In that sense, Ukraine’s incursion into Russia's Kursk province was psychologically important, but both sides are now experiencing attrition on Russian territory as well as on Ukrainian territory. The Kursk venture will only make a difference in the longer term if the balance of attrition is more to Ukraine’s advantage there than elsewhere. This seems doubtful.
Given its manpower and weaponry shortages, will Ukraine be able to withstand the Russian offensive?
Both sides are experiencing shortages of both troops and equipment. Both sides depend on their friends as well as on their own efforts. Throughout the war, Russia has had more resources compared to Ukraine, and Ukraine has had more economically powerful friends. As soon as the exhaustion of resources and friends on one side becomes foreseeable, the war effort can quickly unravel, bringing defeat. Not all wars end in this way, but this is a possible ending for a war of attrition.
Exhaustion and lack of commitment are the main dangers, and they are more difficult to conceal in open societies. With US President-elect Donald Trump taking office two months from now, they are a clear danger for Ukraine. But Russia is also being weakened by the loss of lives and the increasing cost of the favours it requires from its friends. Exhaustion and lack of commitment can be concealed by censorship and repression, and they are harder to see on the Russian side, but they are just as dangerous for the Kremlin.
What do you think about Ukraine’s victory plan presented by Zelensky?
Each of the five points of the peace plan is desirable. To achieve them will take more commitment from Ukraine's friends than is evident at present.
Should Ukraine seek some negotiations (e.g., on a ceasefire) with Russia in light of possible more limited Western aid in 2025?
At the moment I do not see any good outcomes. A ceasefire might be humiliating and dangerous, abandoning many Ukrainians on the wrong side of the ceasefire line, and threatening another war at a later date.
The alternative is to continue the war of attrition, which requires long-term commitment. To defeat Russia requires Ukraine and its friends to support the war materially for as long as it takes. This also has a cost, which is the lives and equipment still to be staked on an uncertain outcome. Ukraine has European support, but European support is very uneven, from Poland at one extreme to Hungary and Turkey at the other. The European defence industry lags behind Ukraine’s immediate requirements, let alone longer-term needs. American support is crucial.
We know that President-elect Trump believes in short-term deals and does not do long-term commitments. We know he wants a ceasefire. We know he admires Putin and dislikes Zelensky. At the same time, he puts a premium on showing strength. He will want to avoid repeating America's humiliating disengagement from Afghanistan in the first months of the Biden presidency.
Most likely, for a short time, Trump will put severe pressure on both sides, Ukraine and Russia, to end the war, at least temporarily, with a ceasefire. If I am right, there will be a moment when the American heat is on Russia. If and when that moment comes, Ukraine should be ready to extract the maximum advantage from it. Once the moment has passed, American support for Ukraine will fall away.
What do you think is the Kremlin’s ultimate objective in Ukraine?
The most important thing for the Kremlin is to change the balance of power in Europe and the borders created after the collapse of communism. In practice, this means neutralizing, subverting, or absorbing Russia's neighbours, keeping Ukraine and Georgia out of NATO and the EU, weakening NATO by splitting America from its European allies and, if possible, securing an American withdrawal from Europe. Putin would think of this as victory.
Trump’s election has made all the Russian goals easier to achieve, but it is not just an American responsibility to resist this. The European powers (including Britain) are also responsible. Russia threatens us all. We should be doing much more to measure up to the challenge. Today, it is not clear if we will.
留言