It is not soldiers or missiles that are Vladimir Putin’s most valuable resource in the war against Ukraine. It’s time. It all depends on how long the Ukrainians can resist the bombing of cities, the atrocities against civilians or the death of hundreds of their soldiers. Will the coalition of countries favorable to Ukraine survive? How long can she afford to donate money and military equipment? And finally, how long will Putin himself last?

For 30 years, Boris Yeltsin and then Putin settled the wars on the borders of Russia in the same way: it was enough to freeze them and heat them in turn. This Kremlin tactic has been dubbed, after all, the “freeze” of conflict: a situation in which fighting has ceased or been reduced – at least for a time – and yet the reasons for the outbreak have persisted. And such a frozen conflict can always break out again.

In the face of the war in Ukraine, there has been much speculation that it too will eventually freeze. There were predictions of some sort of diplomatic agreement that would lead to a ceasefire. For there are forces facing each other that cannot simply give up the fight. Russia cannot lose, because it would be a personal defeat for Putin. Ukraine cannot lose, because it would mean the existential defeat of the whole nation. So, wouldn’t the best way out of this impasse be to put the whole war in the freezer?

Today, it seems unreal. Arming both sides, sending supplies, equipment and money, and the pervasive rhetoric of “towards victory!” rather, they herald a military confrontation of ever-increasing intensity. The conflict will not be frozen, but rather crystallized, in which both sides will shift the entire state apparatus to the war effort and subordinate all international interests to it.

The chaos of new wars

Conflict-freezing tactics are a Russian specialty, but they also reflect changes in the way wars are fought.

Original text title: “War wre”