By Bond Robertson 
comment Expresses the opinion of the writer.
(Nordland newspaper): This is how we can continue counting down the smallest microseconds, the ones that often decide the difference between life and death on the military battlefield.
But whichever way you count, today marks a major milestone for the war in Ukraine, which began on the morning of February 24, 2022.
In many ways, it was a war in which no one believed, not even the Ukrainian authorities. Despite Putin’s increasingly warmongering rhetoric, it would have been madness to start an all-out war in Europe in our time.
Click here to subscribe to the Norsk Debat newsletter
Mad or not, the war came and the war went on. Putin’s dreams of a quick victory are shattered, but Ukraine’s dream of a final victory does not look very realistic.
Wars end in one of three ways: one side surrenders, a peace agreement is negotiated or a conflict ends up frozen with occasional outbreaks of violence that can last for decades.
So far, this last “solution” may seem the most realistic for this war. Russia is still in the Donbass and Crimea, but is unable to control the rest of the country.
Year after year.
Also read: The first year is the worst
This is an outcome Putin can probably live with. It would lock down Ukraine’s political and economic development and ensure long-term Russian influence over the country’s future.
The question is rather whether this is an acceptable solution for Ukraine – and the West. And what are we willing to do to prevent such an outcome.
The two other possible outcomes of the war are often presented as polar opposites.
As when some people make a big point about NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg insisting the war can be won, while Defense Minister Erik Kristofferson says it’s not.
But both the possibility of peace negotiations and their eventual outcome depend to a large extent on how the parties assess their chances of losing the war.
That is why it would be completely wrong to start peace negotiations with Russia. Putin will only be interested in negotiating peace if he believes he is about to lose on the battlefield.
Snorri Valen: Watch the war for what it is: a war of annihilation
The Peace Now proposal, as suggested by the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, based on Russia’s ability to retain the territories it captured in 2014, would be seen by Putin as if the West had capitulated.
Those who suggest something like this also ignore Putin’s repeated message since the war began: No matter how much or how little territory Russia conquers, they have the right to exercise a certain amount of control over all of Ukraine and help decide the country’s future.
Yes, Putin favors a re-division of Cold War Europe into spheres of interest, where all of Eastern Europe was ruled from Moscow and the West allowed that to happen.
There is also no help that can be obtained from other quarters. Sanctions may work in the long term, but this year the International Monetary Fund actually expects the Russian economy to do better than the French and English economies.
The chance that the Russian people will revolt against the war is very small, Putin’s support remains very high, and according to the independent polling institute Levada, the average Russian is more optimistic about the future now than before the invasion.
This year’s security conference in Munich had more participants from countries outside the West than ever before, and the message was clear: The war in Ukraine commands a lot of attention.
Video: A Year of War: – Memories of the Western Front in World War I
Rather, the money spent on arms aid to Ukraine would have gone to help the poor in the Third World, even in the European Union, where many are now experiencing economic problems.
None of the three possible outcomes of this war can be achieved in the short term. Therefore, the West must be willing to take the test. It will be expensive and demanding.
Russia has already switched to a war economy and has sharply increased its arms production, and the West has not.
After the Cold War, on the contrary, we sharply reduced our production of weapons and ammunition intended for conventional warfare with armies that meet in battle.
The United States, for example, could produce just under 100,000 155mm bombs a year if it maximized production. While it is estimated that Ukraine uses up to 5,000 such grenades a day.
The West showed during the epidemic that it is able to intensify the production of important commodities in record time, but at a time when prices are rising and economic problems are increasing throughout the Western world, it will demand that everyone be included in such an intensification plan.
Also Read: Ukraine’s War Defense Minister: – It is possible to imagine the collapse of Russian morale
It would also be very expensive, without benefiting the population in any way.
We have no choice, however, because, as in previous wars, the central principles are now threatened; Freedom, democracy, national independence and the international legal order.
So if Ukraine loses the war, it loses it to all of us. Therefore, we have to stand in the race to the end.
Whether the additional course lasts for six months. One year. Three years. Decade.