I have been a bit puzzled for some time with the constant analysis of Russia/Ukraine based on dollars (or euros or rubles). I just listened to a highly respected retired four-star American general explain how Ukraine has “changed the nature of the war” (Wrong, general. They have changed the nature of the fighting.) because they have been able to use thousand-dollar drones to destroy millions of dollars of Russian armaments.

I get it. The average person listening to the explanation may not grasp the geostrategic or military concepts — especially when you use inexact terminology. Reverting to a dollar value example would appear to be useful. In fact, it may be counter-productive to affording (no pun intended) a better understanding of what is happening. Although I am not an economist, I have been lectured to sufficiently to appreciate why considering a national budget is not analogous to a household budget. The same is true here, when considering who has the upper hand financially.

Russia and Ukraine are locked in a death match. It may be comforting to listen to talking heads discuss how a negotiated peace plan is just around the corner, but to quote my favourite uncle, it is aria fritta or “fried air”. It does not exist. Whatever else Mr. Puytin has demonstrated himself to be, he has shown the world that his skills as a KGB recruiter and handler were well-honed. He has manipulated many, many people, most notably, the US president. The new tsar does not want a settlement; he dare not agree to a settlement; the only settlement he can accept is unconditional surrender by Ukraine. And, once again, there’s the rub.

Back to finances. As interesting as it may be to compare the cost of a drone to a tank or the cost of an autonomous bomb compared to an aircraft, the issue is not about costs. This is not a trade negation. The two countries are not discussing the purchase of a vehicle; they are each fighting existential battles. The difference is that the Ukrainians appreciate that if they give up or even give in, they will cease to be a free people. On the Russian side, they do not see it the same way. Russians know that it is an existential issue for only a small handful of kleptocrats. Russia itself will survive. The Russian people, already enslaved, know that for them the only thing that will change will be who the new tsar will be. In such situations, what something costs fade to near insignificance.

I can hear the counterargument before it is uttered. “But if there is no money, how can weapons be procured?” In normal circumstances, not having the money creates a problem. As the old saying goes in French, “Pas d’argent, pas de Suisses.” No money, no mercenaries. But that is not necessarily the situation here. On the Ukrainian side, they have run out of money more than once. Other countries have stepped up to lend them more, and there are written promises that there is more available if needed. On the Russian side, normal economics do not apply — until just before the end, and they matter a great deal, as was demonstrated in 1989 when the USSR went bankrupt. Is it interesting that you can destroy a billion-dollar jet bomber with a hundred-dollar drone. Sure. Is that a war-winning strategy? Not even close.

In applying a transactional model to this war what we are seeing is a mirror image of what we have been watching political science professors the world over do with respect to the daily-changing synaptic flashes of the US president. We see the mapping of their perception of reality upon actions that likely have nothing whatever to do with that mapping. In other words, if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem becomes a nail.

Like I said, I am not an economist, and neither am I a Marxist. I do not see the Ukraine War in either of those terms. I am a military theorist and so I insist on seeing this conflict in terms of military theory. What I see is an invader who has trapped himself facing a defender who appreciates that giving up is suicidal. I have been saying for four years how this will end. I won’t bother repeating it here except to say that it won’t end because cheap weapons destroy expensive ones.