In The Art of War, Sun Tzu writes: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, in 100 battles you will never be in peril. But if you are ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.”
Vladimir Putin turned out to be ignorant in both ways. He underestimated the Ukrainians and overestimated his own military forces. This is not a matter of poor strategy, just one of ignorance.
Putin’s war plan was a full-on, unstoppable invasion to quickly seize Ukraine’s east, south and center, including Kyiv, replacing Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s government and then normalizing Russian control. Only a few days would be necessary, maybe a week. Ukraine could be split, with the Russian-occupied part absorbed into Russia proper, no longer separate or sovereign. A spectacular, quick victory, like Crimea in 2014.
This failed because Putin thought too highly of his own forces. They got bogged down and mauled, and eventually retreated to modest gains in the east and south.
The Ukrainians, who no doubt also underestimated themselves, are winning battles, but their strategic situation is constrained. Kyiv can't afford a full-scale national war of attrition that could last months or years. However well Ukraine does on the battlefield, Russia can outlast it. Every day Ukraine loses people, infrastructure, and its urban society. More than 10 million of its citizens are refugees or displaced inside the country.
But how can this war end? Putin cannot afford to lose, and Kyiv cannot afford a long war — but its military success means it in no way needs to capitulate.
If this is correct, then the war will not end. But the fighting can be stopped on the basis of mutual interest.
An armistice is a formal agreement for a cessation of hostilities, but it is not a peace treaty. The Russians, understanding that their poor military performance might persist, could agree to one. Kyiv could view an armistice favorably simply because it will stop the bloodshed, allowing refugees and displaced Ukrainians to return home and start rebuilding.
Both sides could present an armistice to their people as a victory. It could be negotiated and signed by the countries’ foreign ministers so that Putin could avoid the humiliation of meeting Zelenskiy in person, which would be an implicit admission of the failure of his big plan to reduce Ukraine.
An armistice would do even more to enhance Zelenskiy’s stature. His first concern — saving Ukrainian lives — would stand out. He would be seen as a wise leader, ready to compromise. He would be seen as anything but reckless, a leader led astray by a desire for glory and a place in history.
How long would an armistice last? Would Russia inevitably recommence its misbegotten war? Maybe not. Putin’s war is a disaster. He has put in danger the very thing he wanted to enhance: his own country’s reputation, security, and economy.
Armistice can go on for a shorter or longer time. World War One ended with an armistice in 1918, before the Peace Conference at Versailles in 1919. The armistice between North and South Korea was signed in 1953 and endured.
In other words, a war can stop even without ending, if the countries fighting see it as being in their national interest.
Ronald Tiersky is the Joseph B. Eastman '04 Professor of Political Science emeritus at Amherst College. The views expressed are the author's own.
