The New York Times: What might happen next in Ukraine?

With the entry of Russia's war on Ukraine into the conflict and the escalation of the fighting, The New York Times gathered four of its top writers for

about what might happen next.

The four writers are: Thomas Friedman, Lulu Garcia Navarro, Ross Douthat and Yara Bayoumi.

The panel discussion came shortly after US President Joe Biden delivered his annual State of the Union address in which he vowed that Russia would face more pain for its actions.

Has the West reached its limits on what to do about economic measures?

This is the question that initiated the paper's discussion between its four writers.

Guarantee the armament of the Ukrainians

In answering the question, Thomas Friedman believed that the most important thing the West could do was to make sure that Ukrainians who were killing in defense of their homeland had all the weapons needed to do so.

It is believed that the engine of this conflict is what is happening between the Ukrainians defending their homeland and the army of Russian President Vladimir Putin trying to control the land.

It seems to me - Friedman adds - that Putin thought that the invasion of Ukraine would be just a picnic, and that he believed his illusions, and thought that there were a handful of Nazis running Ukraine's affairs, and that once he entered, the Ukrainian people would receive him with flowers and demand that he expel those rulers.

But that did not happen, and it was clear that Putin did not have a plan B, "and that he would simply not be able to do what he aspired to, which is to install a puppet and then go back."

And if the Russian president succeeds in installing a puppet, he will have to keep his forces in Ukraine forever, as the American writer believes, who believes that Putin has only 4 options, “either he loses early, loses late, loses a lot or loses a little.”

What deters him?

Writer Lolo García Navarro picks up the thread to ask, "What might deter Putin, is the Ukrainian resistance thwarting his forces' advance, or Western sanctions? There is no other choice."

In turn, writer Ross Douthat sees that the logic of deterrence is no longer really feasible in this case, adding that the West and the rest of the world have taken together steps that may lead to the collapse of the Russian economy in a way that can be compared at least to what Russia went through in the 1990s, a period in which During which Putin rose to power and heralded the end of the liberal dream of his country.

Lulu Navarro believes that the sanctions have already harmed Russia, as it has become economically isolated after European airspace was closed to Russian commercial aviation, and the United States will do the same starting today.

The people are more affected

Yara Bayoumi agrees with her, saying that what we see today is an “excessive reaction” on the part of the West with regard to the complete restriction of the Russian economy, believing that this restricts Putin’s ability to finance the war, “but the truth is that the matter will end with the people It will be most affected."

Bayoumi continues, saying that the Russian people will now not be able to withdraw their money from the banks, and the airspace of commercial aviation is closed, so they have no escape.

As for their salaries, they suddenly and dramatically decreased with the depreciation of the local currency (the ruble).

Bayoumi spoke about the protests that took place in many cities in Russia, although Putin created an environment that could not tolerate any kind of opposition.

We are in the midst of World War III

However, what threatens all of this is that Russia is a nuclear power, according to Navarro, who claims that we are already in the midst of World War III, "but we haven't realized it yet."

Friedman refers to the personality of the Russian president, that there is something more dangerous than a strong Putin, which is that Putin becomes weak and on the verge of defeat or collapse.

The American writer says that he still hopes, and even doubts, that Putin will start using nuclear weapons.

Friedman adds that it is not yet clear what the Russian leader intends to do, noting that this is what raises great concern in himself.

However, the writer makes it clear that he may not fully agree with the view that we are in the midst of World War III.

inappropriate term

Ross Douthat, for his part, stresses that World War III is not an appropriate term, unless we think that the entire Cold War was really a world war.

He cautioned that many of the events involved in the Cold War were proxy wars, military conflicts, and a Russian state that imposed its will - sometimes brutally - on neighboring countries.

Douthat pointed out that these events were managed with a high degree of caution and care, in order to avoid, in particular, the scenario of a third world war.

In response to Navarro's question about what are the possible next chapters, the same writer answered by saying that if Putin invades the Baltic states, the military alliance with them requires the West to rush to defend them, stressing that Putin is aware of this.

Commenting on this, Yara Bayoumi says that there are many obstacles that prevented the Cold War from turning into a world war, adding, "We do not currently have the obstacles to prevent this, whether it is in the form of arms control agreements, or such cultural awareness." I have a lot of people who grew up during the Cold War."

Dirty settlement or banishment of Putin

The discussion touched on the scenarios that were previously addressed by Thomas Friedman in his article in the New York Times, where he stressed that there are two scenarios that are most likely to occur.

The first of them relates to a kind of what he calls a dirty or unpleasant settlement, in which the Ukrainians basically agree - through ongoing negotiations with the Russians - that Russia obtain the eastern regions that are already under Moscow's control, and that Kyiv declares categorically that it will not join NATO.

In return, Russian forces leave Ukraine and Western countries lift their sanctions.

The second scenario - which Friedman sees as the best although it is the least likely - is for the Russian people to rise up with courage in defense of their freedom, as did the Ukrainian people, and rid the region of war by removing Putin from office.

"We will see intervention, not in Ukraine, but in the Kremlin with Mr. President. And I think that will be very difficult because Putin has surrounded himself with multiple levels of security," he says.

Important lessons from this war

Dowhat returns - on his part - and says that what worries him is that everyone is exaggerating the commitment beyond his ability to achieve, as the Russian president moved from declaring that he does not want NATO expansion near his country's borders, to saying that "Ukraine is not a country in the true sense of the word, and it must be reunified. With Russia, the largest and largest country to which it mainly belongs."

Putin - and Duhat's opinion - should return to his first statement, describing it as the most moderate, and retract the second.

From Douthat's point of view, the current conflict has benefited the United States in two main issues that may lead to global stability in the long term.

The conflict demonstrated to America's European allies that they had to take seriously old problems, such as those that required a massive military build-up, and their need for some freedom from dependence on "authoritarian" Russia for their energy needs.

By the same token, China should consider how much Putin would have struggled to subdue Ukraine, and realize that it would face similar challenges if it invaded Taiwan.