This Map Helps Explain Why the Russia-Ukraine War Hasn’t Ended

Two months into the Russia-Ukraine War, and the battle still continues. This video helps explain why the parties have not yet reached a settlement. War is best thought of as bargaining failure, which can happen as a consequence of differing expectations of what will happen in the event of a conflict. Russia's failure to take Kyiv provided helpful information. But it hasn't completely resolved the information asymmetry. Now what matters is how the war will play out when Russia is just focused on the southern and eastern fronts. Until that gets resolved, there still may not be a forthcoming deal.

0:00 Introduction
0:55 February: Russia's Three-Front Invasion
2:32 March: Kyiv Offensive Stalls
2:45 April: Russia Reorients East
3:06 Why Did the War Begin?
4:14 Russia Learns It Was Wrong
5:16 Why Did Putin Have Bad Information?
6:43 War Provides New Information, But Also a New Strategy

[mrvk]

There is a fundamental flaw in this type of analysis. It assumes that both parties are rational players who seek rational goals and willing to settle for rational compromises. But, how often, are we, humans, fully rational? Here is a conflict driven by historic grievances, nationalism, and propaganda for both sides. Rationality isn't particularly high here. It's not two powers fighting over some resource with no emotional value attached. Frankly, I don't think Ukraine is willing to accept, now, ANY territorial losses since before 2022. They might compromise on neutrality and de facto loss of Crimea but they won't accept the loss of any of their cities. Zelensky might want to end casualties and economic pain but the people, the military made so many sacrifices and nationalism runs so high, that he would be deposed in a coup if he were to agree to loss of Mariupol and Kherson. Alternatively, Putin is risking losing power at home if all he has to show for sanctions and tens of thousands of dead is a bit more of Donbass and that's it. Neither side will be rational. This explains why this conflict could be a long-term one. You should, instead, focus on when each side runs out of resources to wage this war - this will be the main driver for an eventual peace settlement.

[fibberu]

The flaw in this very logical analysis is that it assumes logical decision making on both sides. If either side believes it can win it will continue to fight. Russia tries to win by increased effort and material commitment. Ukraine believes it's friends will outmatch the Russian effort and material. They may both decide on lines of the possible, which are different to reality. So the fighting goes on. Neither side can unilaterally stop. The belief that your cause is just can cause stubborn refusal to really examine the possible. The fear of the personal consequences can do likewise. The last war fought in this area was Hitler's war and this analysis did not match that outcome.

[Raven.flight]

I think the other thing is that long wars are almost like a series of small wars. Like, WWII was the Battle of France, which was over in weeks. The Battle of Britain, which was over in weeks. There was the Normandy Invasions which was over in weeks. The various phases of a longer war can almost be seen as pulses of battles, and even the battles can be broken down into various phases. It's almost impossible to have a continual war with no 'down time'.

[Gregb]

Part of the original motivation of the war from Russia's perspective is that it'd be more costly to wage in the future. It seems like the same could still be occurring -- Ukraine expects to be in better shape to wage war as they continue to get supplies from the West, and they anticipate Russia to be in a worse position as sanctions bite.

[jahsoldier]

I think this is a weeee bit more philosophy about ideals and a lot harder to actually relate to this conflict. This isn't a conflict over resources where reasonable parties will meet and negotiate like a boardroom. A war for resources might fit that way of thinking, but not this.

[wombatdk]

Just one question... where on earth did you pull those expectations from??? It seems a lot of speculation went into this, with a few outright falsehoods. The war didn't start 2 or 3 months ago. It started around 2014, possibly earlier.

[mamajune]

I hope things get better, feel so sad for the lives of the civilians out there 🥺

[gsmc]

A simplistic view of the conflict, which keeps talking about the balance of power between Ukraine and Russia, without mentioning a word about US and NATO.

[Paultarco]

Here's an issue I can see with this view of settled peace: it is a one turn game

Say both parties agree on the same final state of total war and implement a settled solution somewhere between the two costs of war.

The border moves forward. Since no costs of were war inflicted the balance of power is unchanged, now the new expected result is russia invades, moves to Ukraine's disadvantage.

If you think Russia is likely to demand more in the future, there is very little incentive to negociate a peace without fighting and reducing Russia's military potential first. Otherwise the expected outcome of a war keeps shifting west

[miikapekk]

The war has actually been going on for 8 years. Maybe the theory doesn't apply because you need to be comparing statistics from long term wars. Ukraine has been investing more resources in the last 8 years. Also if we ignore the catastrophic loss in lives, Ukraine has gained more resources from over 30 other countries that are now supplying financial support and weapons. While Russia overall is loosing resources. Also the EU & America can go on supporting Ukraine almost indefinitely because collectively the cost to them is so much less of a percentage of their economic power. As compared to the unsustainable proportion the Russian economy has to contribute. So eventually Russia may not be able to continue financing a war or will have to escalate it even more at an even greater cost, with the hope of ending it quickly.

[EASTSIDERIDER]

A senseless loss of young lives who never asked for this war. I was drafted into the U S Army during the Vietnam war. Lives were wasted on both sides.

[introman]

Congratulations William. You've been making videos for a decade, and it's just now that you're really blowing up.
You must be so thrilled now.

[Armyforce]

“Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory.”-General George S Patton

[ignatserguta]

Hello! As a Ukrainian, I’m asking you to correct your narrative.
First of all, the war started 8 years ago. We’re fighting for Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk since 2013. Unfortunately, USA and EU has just began to open their eyes in 2022.
Secondly, I propose you to use your “bargaining” logic to you native country. And imagine Mexica “bargaining” to extend its borders to Stanford. Will USA “bargain” about keeping the borders in LA? Definitely not. You will be protecting the original borders as stated in Constitution (we have the same statement in ours btw). And that’s exactly what Ukraine is doing.
And third, we’re grateful for USA and whole civilised world support. If you’re addressing “hyped” Ukrainian topic - kindly asking to add official Ukrainian army accounts for donations to such videos. I can provide you with those.

[alanwilson]

The comments ignore some important points. For one thing, the war really started in 2014 when Russia occupied Crimea and the eastern provinces. Ukraines response has been to rally support, and it has taken several years for that effort to finally work. So, when Russia invaded in Feb 2022, it looked to most observers (including Russian observers) like a simple extension of the conflict that has been under way for 8 years, so that Russia could declare a final complete victory. I also disagree with the histogram for the duration of wars. There is a difference between a couple of costly battles, and a war that challenges peoples existence. In the US, for example, the Vietnam War and the Civil War (also the Afghanistan War) outlasted both WW 1 and WW2. Claiming that most wars are over after a few battles lasting 2 or 3 months, only makes sense for a very loose definition of a war.

[vladbronnikov]

Small note, Ukrainian perspective is all territories that was occupied, we not planning about our other historical territories yet

[dongeorge]

As an attorney, I understand the concept. It is our basic evaluation of a case. But parties to a case come with emotion; emotion at the beginning of a case, emotion heightened during a case. And emotion overrules logic.

The war crimes allegedly committed by Russia will heighten the emotions of Ukrainians (and indeed the Western World) and whatever results might once have been considered acceptable is probably unrealistic now.

[VladimirTheAesthete]

Having some sobering, hard-cold political science analysis in our times of biased and overly emotional media is very sobering and refreshing. Love this channel!

[robertbricker]

I vaguely follow your explanation of differing expectations regarding gains and losses from the war, but I'd observe that (1) This is a moving target and (2) Previously ambigous aspects of gain/loss functions can appear unexpectedly. In particular, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Putin had prior probabilities regarding the possible outcomes that were not only wrong militarily and not only wrong economically (in terms of the west's response) but probably completely put outside the realm of consideration any likelihood that his own regime could be put at risk. When you have an authoritarian government like Mr. Putin's, one doesn't go off quietly in to retirement if things don't go well. One is given a blindfold and asked to stand in front of a wall. This adds to the complexity of the calculus of the gains and losses of war, because to someone like him, his own death is an infinitely large loss, and so probably virtually any steps needed to avoid that eventuality have to be pursued - probably to the point that either 'something turns up' or some element of his own citizenry gets alarmed enough to go and get the blindfold. The bottom line is that there really isn't a simple or even perhaps logically coherent 'utility' function over the war's outcomes that we can model very well - it's very messy, changing, and filled with contradictory and seemingly irrational aspects. Like just about everything.

[gordonmutten]

I think you're absolutely correct - there is such a huge difference between what each side wants to achieve that they both see each other as not serious about negotiating a settlement. That is why you hear comments like "this war will be won on the battlefield". i.e. one side has to be forced back so much that they eventually have no choice but to capitulate.