IN CASE OF ESCALATION, WHO “IS WINNING”?
Many do not seem to grasp the concept of “escalation” (usually the same ones who seem impervious to the concept of war of attrition).
Imagine a chessboard with White's Tower positioned to threaten Black's Tower. However, both pieces are protected by a pawn. So nothing happens until White finally decides to take Black's tower. As expected, Black retaliates by taking White's one.
Can you then say “Black is certainly losing”?
Perhaps, perhaps not… The two Towers are no more. Therefore, before making any assumptions, it is advisable to thoroughly examine the remaining pieces of each player on the chessboard.
What matters, in fact, is not who managed to provoke an escalation of the conflict, but who is likely to suffer more from its consequences.
What about Ukraine's choice to systematically hit the bridges of Crimea, for example? Russia immediately retaliated by systematically hitting south of Odessa all the bridges connecting Ukraine and Romania by road or rail. Ukraine is undermining supplies to Crimea, but Russia is undermining Ukraine’s supplies as a whole.
What about Ukraine’s choice to systematically attack ships involved in maritime trade with Russia through the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea? Russia swiftly responded by methodically targeting port areas near Odessa and attacking all vessels docked there. Thus, Ukraine faces the risk of losing its sole maritime access, despite never being able to pose a threat to Russia's access to global shipping routes. Just check out the map!
Both sides, therefore, will suffer from these escalation moves by Ukraine, no doubt, but Russia, overall, will likely suffer less, a lot less actually.
