The New York Times raised questions about the prospects for the end of the war in Ukraine and the paths that a solution might take according to the short timetable proposed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Last June, Zelensky told world leaders that he wanted the war to end before 2023, adding that he would "negotiate only from a position of strength."

In an article by one of its editors, Spencer Bokat-Lindell, the American newspaper reviewed the opinions and comments of some journalists and writers in their attempts to answer these questions.

Andrew Kramer, director of the "New York Times" bureau in Kyiv, believes that the fighting in Ukraine is actually taking place on two fronts: the Donbass region in the east, which was captured by Russia, and the southern region, where Ukrainian forces are preparing to launch a counterattack to regain the lost territories, and confirms that both sides have suffered losses. Huge and a waste of resources.

But Kramer did not provide clear answers to the questions posed, and the newspaper returns to ask the question in another way: How can the war end sooner rather than later?

The fastest path to the end of the war

The author of the article believes that the fastest and least bloody path to ending the conflict is through a negotiated settlement between the two sides, but this path appears - in his opinion - completely closed at the moment.

He quotes a statement made by the head of Ukraine's National Security Council, Oleksiy Dinlov, to the New York Times, in which he says that the question of the end of the war is about "who wins over whom."

In this context, is there a chance for Ukraine to recover its lost territories?

This is how the writer asks, quoting an article by Anisy Van England, professor of international security and law at Cranfield University, on The Conversation website, that providing the West with Ukraine with long-range missile systems would provide the Ukrainian army with an opportunity to begin to reclaim the lands that it occupied. It is spread by the Russians, and perhaps other lands that "local groups loyal to Russia are seeking to prove that they belong to them".

But the opportunity could easily turn against Ukraine.

According to an article by Hal Brands, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies, in Bloomberg, a failed attack that ends in a retreat would be a "disaster" for Ukraine, "making it militarily weaker and more diplomatically isolated."

risk


By contrast, Brands argues that Ukraine could become a "victim" of its own success;

If its forces penetrate further into what Russia will soon consider its territory in the Donbass, Russian President Vladimir Putin may retaliate with low-yield nuclear weapons.

Retired British General Richard Barons expects that Russia will declare, before the end of this year, the occupied Ukrainian regions as part of the Russian state.

On the other hand, retired US Admiral James Stavridis rules out the possibility that Putin will resort to the use of nuclear weapons "because he has other, less dangerous means to terrorize Ukraine and intimidate the West, namely chemical weapons."

The writer considers the intervention of China - one of Russia's closest allies - a factor that is likely to change the rules of the game, noting that US officials had stated in the first weeks of the invasion that Moscow had made appeals to Beijing for military support, "which it has been rejecting so far on what is It seems".

But New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman believes that the recent visit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, which the Chinese government considered a provocation, could prompt her to re-evaluate her position on Ukraine, as he put it.