In my opinion, the war in Ukraine is much more complicated than most people realize. We are constantly bombarded with propaganda from all sides and it inhibits rational thinking. One of the few reliable facts is that Vladimir Putin is a very smart bad person.
Lots of people think they have the answer to ending the war in Ukraine. One of the latest pundits is Chris Alexander who has published his thoughts in the Feb. 16, 2024 edition of Canada's Globe and Mail: Ukraine is paying the price for our nonchalance toward Russia’s leadership. Alexander spent years in Canada's Foreign Service, including many years in Moscow and a stint as Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan. In 2011 he was elected to Parliament as a Conservative MP and served as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Stephen Harper's cabinet. His reputation as a politician was very different than his previous, mostly admirable, reputation as a diplomat. Here's a excerpt from his Wikipedia article.
Alexander's time in office was marked by what a number of commentators described as a surprisingly adversarial approach to politics, in contrast with the expectation of some that he would be a moderate figure. A commentator stated that "When you see a guy whose career has been built on diplomacy and a persuasive life in a pugilistic position, it can be a conflicting image." In a June 2015 debate on Twitter, Canadian political journalist Paul Wells criticised Alexander for distortions of Canadian history and of his own policies, adding "Chris Alexander's jaw flaps like a barn door and he has no control over what comes out of it" and "if this is what smart gets us in a cabinet minister, I'd gladly trade it in for some stupid".
Alexander identifies himself as "a distinguished fellow of the Canadian International Council and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute." Given this position and his former extensive experience as a diplomat, you would think that his views on the war in Ukraine would be noteworthy. Indeed they are, but not for the reason you might expect. Let's look at the bullet points in his article—the ones listed under "Ukraine's allies should do the following."
- take Kyiv out of the strategic grey zone and into NATO and the EU;Canada and all the other NATO members are obliged to declare war on Russia the instant that Ukraine joins NATO. That means that any attempt to attack Russia directly with American (NATO) forces could trigger a nuclear response. It means that China will be forced to take a position and so will India and many other non-NATO countries. This does not seem like a very reasonable strategy.- green-light Ukrainian attacks on Russia, including with ATACMS and Taurus missiles;
Up until now, Russia is tolerating limited attacks on Russia by Ukraine. That's certainly going to change if large numbers of Russian civilians are killed in Russia by Ukrainian missiles. I don't think the response will be to Ukraine's advantage. Lots of Ukrainian civilians have already been killed by Russia but it could get a lot worse, look at Gaza.- dismantle Russia’s support networks for global active measures and send their spies back to Moscow;
Easier said than done. I doubt that NATO countries can identify all Russian spies. Can Russia identify all NATO spies?- deny Moscow more oil revenues by lowering the sanction price cap, call the bluff of profiteering ship owners who have helped the Kremlin stay solvent, and enact secondary sanctions on states used to circumvent the current regime;
Sounds like a great idea. However, most of the world is ignoring NATO's sanctions on Russia so enacting sanctions on all those countries is likely to trigger retaliatory sanctions and this could cripple the world's economy. It's time to recognize that there's a reason why a large part of the world is not obeying the United States and the other NATO countries when it comes to sanctions. Do we really want to force a showdown with China, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Iran, and most of the third world countries?- meet all of Kyiv’s ammunition needs with wartime production levels;
Hmmm ... let me calculate the probability that Prime Minister Trudeau would shift Canada's economy into wartime production of arms and ammunition. ... crunch! crunch! crunch! ... The probability is zero. What about the current leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre? What's the probability that he would do that if he became Prime Minister? ... also zero. What a stupid and naive thing for Chris Alexander to say.- enable Ukrainian air, artillery, air defence, drone and naval supremacy;
What would it take to "enable" supremacy? You can't just ship a bunch of advanced fighter aircraft to Ukraine and expect Ukrainian pilots to achieve air supremacy against a country that's more than three times the size of Ukraine. You can't just sail a bunch of advanced warships into Odesa, turn them over to Ukrainian sailors, and expect them to achieve naval supremacy in the Black Sea. Or can you?- make hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian central-bank reserves available to Ukraine;
Okay. Sounds good. Where is this money and who controls it?- indict Moscow’s entire chain of command for war crimes;
Not a problem but don't stop with Russia; there are lots of military leaders in other countries that are guilty of war crimes. I'm sure that if the international courts just indicted everybody we could put a stop to all war crimes in just a few months. (This is sarcasm. The reputation of the International Criminal Court is already in tatters because it's viewed as a tool of the Western nations. )- and, finally, remove Moscow from the UN Security Council and other international bodies.
Another brilliant suggestion! But why stop with Russia? Shouldn't we also kick out China, another one of the five permanent members who were involved in creating the United Nations? That would leave only France, the UK, and the United States. Since France and the UK almost always vote with the United States, we could greatly simplify the Security Council by just making the United States the only member. That would make diplomacy a lot easier. (Also sarcasm.)
I don't know much about the Canadian International Council and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute but I suggest that they look for more responsible members.
My own view is that NATO countries have to help negotiate a peace between Ukraine and Russia even if it means that Ukraine surrenders territory. That peace treaty would require future guarantees of Ukrainian independance so that any further attack on Ukraine by Russia would automatically trigger a larger war. It should not involve stationing NATO forces in Ukraine. I do not favor any proposal that pretends that Ukraine could win the war and take back all the territory currently held by Russia. Such proposals are unrealistic.
I suspect that the best way to achieve this objective is by quiet diplomacy outside of the glare of publicity, propaganda, and politics. I suspect that is happening but we need to do more to prepare the general public for this outcome. Putin isn't helping by murdering his opponents.
These are perilous times. The fall of Avdiika isn't a surprise but The New York Times article paints an ugly picture of Ukrainian forces who were forced to leave wounded behind during the retreat [Avdiivka, Longtime Stronghold for Ukraine, Falls to Russians]. Russia is advancing all along the northern front and there's a significant risk of a general Ukrainian collapse.
48 comments :
My own view is that NATO countries have to help negotiate a peace between Ukraine and Russia even if it means that Ukraine surrenders territory.
What motive does Russia have to agree to this treaty? Right now all they have to do is wait for western ammo supplies to run out and they take the entire country.
That peace treaty would require future guarantees of Ukrainian independance so that any further attack on Ukraine by Russia would automatically trigger a larger war.
Meaning NATO.
It should not involve stationing NATO forces in Ukraine.
Or... not NATO. All this not-NATO does is create ambiguity that invites further Russian invasions. If Ukraine gives up territory they must become a member of NATO or they're simply waiting for another Russian invasion
I do not favor any proposal that pretends that Ukraine could win the war and take back all the territory currently held by Russia. Such proposals are unrealistic.
Unrealistic if you don't give Ukraine weaponry. Right now Russia is getting more international support when it comes to ammunition (NK and Iran) than Ukraine is.
But during the fall when Ukraine had ample ammunition (even after the counter offensive stalled) Russian forces were buckling.
Ukraine could easily win the war if the west (particularly the US) gave it a fraction of the supplies they have and Ukraine needs.
I've always felt that it is important to get all those foreigners out of the United Nations. Except maybe Canada, like we do with the "World Series".
I live in Poland.
I don't remeber russian opression (I'm too young) nor do I know much about the history of russian conflicts, but people who do remeber and who do know the history are saying, that Russia does not respect any peace treaties, nor do they respect any guarantees (this is actually something we were seeing in the current conflict). You cannot simply make peace with them. The only thing you can do is to cease conflict for a time, but that only will give them time to prepare for another conflict.
This may be indifferent to you, because Russia does not have any territorial claims toward Canada, but if Russia win, my country is probably next on the list.
So I cannot agree with you when you say that we should make a peace treaty with Putin using quiet diplomacy and if neccessary - give up some Ukrainian territories.
Also I don't think we could actually decide for Ukraine - they are independent country, they have all the rights to fight for themselves.
So you're saying that if we give Russia the Sudetenland they won't make any further territorial claims on Czechoslovakia?
@aluchko: I doubt that Russia has the resources to take all of Ukraine. I don't think they are interested in Lviv. They might be tempted to occupy eastern Ukraine up to the Dnipro if given the opportunity. Russia's stated objectives are to hold on to what they've got and keep Ukraine non-aligned.
There is no possibility that Russia would ever agree to allow American forces to be stationed in Ukraine. That's mostly what this war is about.
You say, "Ukraine could easily win the war if the west (particularly the US) gave it a fraction of the supplies they have and Ukraine needs." That's not a rational position. Ukraine will never have enough troops to defeat Russia and take back all the territory they've lost. The Ukrainian army could not defend Crimea and could not hold the Donbas region during the civil war with the Russian-backed rebels.
I'm not supporting or sympathizing with Putin and Russia. What I'm trying to do is point out the facts in an attempt to counteract the NATO/Ukraine propaganda that's prolonging this war. Ukraine's failure to live up to its rhetoric in the conflict is causing allies to become skeptical and that's going to prevent the funding they so desperately need.
@Arek Wittbrodt: I understand why you may feel more threatened by Russia than I do. Some of my ancestors come from Ukraine but that was two generations ago.
I don't think that the Soviet Union/Russia is any worse at keeping treaties that other countries. Here in Canada, we are constantly frustrated with America's inability to abide by the agreements we have with them. However, if you honestly believe that Russia will never respect any treaty then the only alternative is constant war and that's very sad.
The one thing this war has taught us is that Russia is nowhere near the major threat that NATO has been promoting for the past thirty years. Russia can't even conquer Ukraine in this 21st century military environment. War has reverted to the kind of slogging and trench warfare we saw in World War I. We don't need to be scared of Russia. There are other parts of the world that need our attention.
The idea that Russia might roll over all of Ukraine and then attack Poland is not realistic.
You say, "Also I don't think we could actually decide for Ukraine - they are independent country, they have all the rights to fight for themselves." That's only partly true. My country, Canada, and many other countries, are supplying Ukraine with massive amounts of aid. We are also housing tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees (as is Poland). We have a say in whether that aid should continue because we are in a proxy war with Russia.
The NATO countries also have to be part of any negotiated settlement with Russia because that's what Russia fears. Nobody wants to see Ukraine collapse because its foreign support dries up but that's exactly what might happen if this war drags on much longer.
@John Harshman asks, "So you're saying that if we give Russia the Sudetenland they won't make any further territorial claims on Czechoslovakia?"
What is your point? Do you think that the war should continue? What goal do you hope to achieve? Do you think Ukraine can take back Crimea?
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia withdrew all its troops from eastern Europe on the understanding that NATO would not move its troops into those territories and station them on Russia's border. They probably regret that decision even though they had about as much choice as England did in 1938.
The situation in 2024 is very different than in 1938. NATO had the power to prevent Russia from taking over large parts of Ukraine but it choose not to exercise that power. NATO has the power to draw a line in the sand and prevent any further expansion into Ukraine but now is the time for it to stand up and exercise that option. NATO is not willing to go to war with Russia in order to force them out of the territory it now occupies.
England and France did not have the means to stop Hitler in 1938 and the United States didn't give a damn. In fact, the United States didn't even try and prevent Hitler from taking Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France.
@Larry Moran
I doubt that Russia has the resources to take all of Ukraine. I don't think they are interested in Lviv. They might be tempted to occupy eastern Ukraine up to the Dnipro if given the opportunity. Russia's stated objectives are to hold on to what they've got and keep Ukraine non-aligned.
I'm sorry, but this is dangerously naive. The war literally started with an attempt to take Kyiv and an accidentally published article celebrating Ukraine's membership in the "Union State" with Belarus.
If the Ukrainian army collapses there's nothing to stop them, they install a local puppet dictator, claim the land they want as Russia proper, and then start Russifying the rest via their dictator.
What is your point? Do you think that the war should continue? What goal do you hope to achieve? Do you think Ukraine can take back Crimea?
I think we should support Ukrainians in whatever decision they make. If they're willing to fight and die for their country then we should give them the weapons they need to keep the dying part to a minimum.
And of course Ukraine can take back Crimea. They need weapons to do it, but the moment Ukraine gets back to the coast they can take out the bridge, and their drones make supply by ship very difficult.
There is no possibility that Russia would ever agree to allow American forces to be stationed in Ukraine. That's mostly what this war is about.
Huh??? I'm sorry but that's completely detached from reality. Post-2014 US troops were never going to be stationed in Ukraine for the same reason Ukraine wouldn't be let into NATO.
US troops are posted in countries as human shield, you can't attack the country without attacking the US and now you're at war with the US.
That's why the US leaves troops in South Korea, because they're not afraid of a war with North Korea.
That's also why the US took it's bases OUT of Taiwan. Because if China attacks they don't want to be forced into a war with a mature Nuclear adversary.
The US posting troops in post-2014 Ukraine would be lunacy.
I'm not supporting or sympathizing with Putin and Russia. What I'm trying to do is point out the facts in an attempt to counteract the NATO/Ukraine propaganda that's prolonging this war. Ukraine's failure to live up to its rhetoric in the conflict is causing allies to become skeptical and that's going to prevent the funding they so desperately need.
I really respect you as a biologist, but I'm sorry to say that on this topic you are very much out of your depth.
To be honest, your "US troops" comment reminds me of Daniel Smith's comments about Ukraine having Nuclear weapons. It's not just misinformed, but it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of the geopolitics.
The goal I would hope to achieve would be to prevent aggression from succeeding.
The big difference between 1938 and the present day is that Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. And you seem to be greatly overestimating German military strength in 1938 and underestimating Czechoslovakia's. Had France, Britain, and Russia combined in 1938, Germany could have been deterred. Though none of that seems especially relevant now, nor does past U.S. isolationism. Current U.S. isolationism is a problem, though.
More military support for Ukraine, anything short of direct engagement with Russia, seems like the best policy to me, though nobody has asked.
@John Harshman
You make an important point that a lot of people overlook. There's a lot of value in doing something because it is the right thing to do.
Russia is in the wrong, that's overwhelmingly clear, they're an aggressor trying to conquer and commit genocide against a neighbouring group.
Ukrainians are in the right, they did nothing to hurt or threaten Russia except try and be their own independent country.
Forget all this realpolitik crap, we should support Ukraine as much as necessary for them to win because they are clearly, overwhelmingly, in the right and they need our help to survive.
If we abandon Ukraine our moral authority basically drops to zero, and we might as well tell every non-NATO member of the former USSR to brush up on their Russian, forget their current national identity, and become a province of the new Russian empire because we don't give a crap about them anyway.
@Larry Moran
I think there is a slight difference between USA not abiding to their agreement with Canada and Russians having "in deep respect"(*) peace treaty and invading foering country and kiling its citizens when it suits them.
Yes, you are right that Russia is nowhere near the major threat that we thought it was. For now. Although I wouldn't want to be the man saying this to the Ukrainian soldiers and civilians dying in this war.
And no - it was Russian propaganda, not NATO's. We all bought it.
That doesn't mean it won't change in the future. I prefer to not neglect this threat.
I know that both USA and Canada, and most (all?) European countries are helping Ukraine and by proxy all of Russia's neighbors. We are all very grateful for that, we really are. And I agree that NATO should be involved in the peace process. But the decision should be exclusively Ukrainan. No shady, over-their head quiet diplomacy with no regard for their interests.
(*) I translated this literally from the polish - I don't know whether this sentence functions in english in the same way as in polish. It is an euphemism for "having something deep in its a***", to have no regard whatsoever.
Let's be clear here. If military support for Ukraine stops or dries up, Russia will eventually overpower them. Ukraine does not have the resources to produce the amount of ammunition and equipment to keep Russia at a stalemate.
So that sounds to me like Russia has nothing to gain from entering into peace negotiations now. Why would they? If Western support for Ukraine looks like it's drying up slowly, then they just need to press on and eventually they will be able to take the entire country.
As for whether it is within the capability of Ukraine to re-take lost territory is a different question I can't answer with much certainty at all. What is obvious at this point is that the latest shenanigans by the Republicans in the US congress, holding Ukrainian aid hostage in vacuous Mexico-border and immigration disputes, has hurt the Ukrainian war-effort.
On a related note I think much of the current situation is a product of western aid latency. Western powers were way too late to decide that of course we can give Ukraine tanks, planes, and artillery (the whole we don't want escalation-argument always seemed bonkers to me). They should have realized this after the first 2 months of the war. Seriously.
Russia was able to fortify their positions in the 2022-2023 winter, when Ukraine still hadn't received a lot of the heavier equipment (and until just recently they started getting ATACMS, Stormshadow/SCALP, and other cruise missiles, why after so long?), which pretty much doomed the 2023 spring/summer offensive for Ukraine. It looked like Ukraine got ahead for a while after receiving HIMARS and being able to hit Russian logistics hard. But they lacked the tanks & IFVs to make large pushes to capitalize on this at the the time. So during the 22-23 winter the Russian minefields and fortifications were heavily expanded, and it gave time for Russian logistics to catch back up.
This idea that Russia doesn't want Lviv or whatever is borderline delusional. Obviously they want all of Ukraine if possible (but will try to grab more immediately reachable goals where and when they can), and have basically no care for the cost in terms of manpower and material. If they believe they can beat Ukraine because their rate of production and total pool of eligible personnel is that much larger than Ukraine's, does anyone really doubt Putin would hesitate going for the grand prize? Why would he?
Another poster reminds us that Britain, the U.S. and Russia all signed an agreement to guarantee Ukraine's borders when it gave up its nuclear arsenal. So much for guarantees.
Larry, about Philip Ball's new book.
Have you seen his remarks about ENCODE?
I quoted this on my blog:
"Just how much of that noncoding DNA really makes a difference is another matter. It's probably not 80 percent - ENCODE member Bradly Bernstein guesses that 30 percent might be a more realistic figure." (chapter 3)
but I will leave it to you to blog about it!
There are many issues that are contentious. Let's start with the most important.
Should Ukraine and Russia negotiate an end to the war?
It seems likely that any negotiated peace at this time would require ceding Crimea and most of the currently occupied territories to Russia. It seems likely that Russia would agree to NATO guarantees of Ukraine's future independence but would not agree to Ukraine joining NATO and allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine.
The main argument in favor of peace is to save lives and stop further destruction. It's a point of view favored by people who think that all wars are bad and killing people is something that should be avoided if at all possible. (They also think that there are just wars.) It also may prevent Russia from taking over more territory and that's a real danger if the Ukrainian army collapses from lack of troops and supplies. A stable peace in Ukraine would allow countries to turn their attention to other, more pressing, needs.
The arguments against peace break down into four categories. The first is the view that Ukraine could still win the war if it had massive support from the NATO countries. This is a powerful argument but it depends on whether there's a realistic chance of a Ukrainian victory.
The second argument is more like a moral objection to surrender. It's based on the idea that Ukraine and the NATO countries should never give in to a ruthless dictator like Putin no matter what the cost. I assume it means that it might be better to go down to defeat as long as your cause is just.
The third argument is that it is in the best interests of the NATO countries to keep supporting Ukraine because if the war continues it will degrade Russian forces. This argument is related to the domino effect that is often used as a justification for war. It's based on the belief that Russia's eventual goal is to take over Poland and the Baltic countries and it's wise to stop Russia right now.
The fourth argument is that signing a peace treaty with Russia would be a waste of time because Russia will never abide by the treaty. This argument is based on the view that the USSR and Russia have a history of not adhering to the terms of previous treaties.
These are all valid arguments but they all depend to some extent on how the war is proceeding. If it looks like Ukraine will continue to receive massive support indefinitely from NATO countries then you can entertain the view that a Ukrainian victory is possible, or at least a stalemate. This may or may not be a realistic possibility.
If it looks like Russia is winning then one can still favor continuing the war hoping that Russia's victory will be costly. And you can be comforted knowing that Ukraine fought for democracy and didn't surrender to a dictator. This view might change if the cost in Ukrainian lives continues to mount.
It seems likely that any negotiated peace at this time would require ceding Crimea and most of the currently occupied territories to Russia. It seems likely that Russia would agree to NATO guarantees of Ukraine's future independence but would not agree to Ukraine joining NATO and allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine.
First, this is a terribly unjust deal that gives Russia huge rewards and condemns countless Ukrainians to exile or subjugation.
Second, you've basically recreated the Budapest Memorandum (with a slight NATO modification NATO doesn't actually care about), we know how that ended. Russia invades.
Third, you have zero evidence that Russia is interested in that deal. Russia started with the goal of complete subjugation, they maintained that goal when Ukraine pushed that back and started retaking territory, and without an unambiguous signal that the West will heavily support Ukraine to win the war Russia will maintain the goal of complete subjucation.
The main argument in favor of peace is to save lives and stop further destruction. It's a point of view favored by people who think that all wars are bad and killing people is something that should be avoided if at all possible.
Ukrainians are the ones fighting and dying. Why is this our decision to make?
The arguments against peace break down into four categories. The first is the view that Ukraine could still win the war if it had massive support from the NATO countries. This is a powerful argument but it depends on whether there's a realistic chance of a Ukrainian victory.
There's very much a realistic chance. Relying mostly on artillery they were winning a war of attrition. Restore their ammo and add jets and they can definitely win.
The second argument is more like a moral objection to surrender. It's based on the idea that Ukraine and the NATO countries should never give in to a ruthless dictator like Putin no matter what the cost. I assume it means that it might be better to go down to defeat as long as your cause is just.
No. It means you give them the guns and ammo they need to win, or at the very least fight to a standstill.
The third argument is that it is in the best interests of the NATO countries to keep supporting Ukraine because if the war continues it will degrade Russian forces. This argument is related to the domino effect that is often used as a justification for war. It's based on the belief that Russia's eventual goal is to take over Poland and the Baltic countries and it's wise to stop Russia right now.
We know it is. If Ukraine falls then small non-NATO former USSR countries know they're either going to fall in line or get invaded. And once NATOs resolve is shown to be weak the odds of the alliance collapsing (something Putin and Trump wants) goes way up. And with that the odds of Estonia and Poland getting invaded, not to mention the odds of a major war.
If it looks like Russia is winning then one can still favor continuing the war hoping that Russia's victory will be costly. And you can be comforted knowing that Ukraine fought for democracy and didn't surrender to a dictator. This view might change if the cost in Ukrainian lives continues to mount.
Again, remember the decision belongs to Ukrainians, not us.
But also, remember the symbolism, Putin is framing this as a war against NATO, a war against Democracy, a war against western decadence. People still look back to WWII as a triumph of Democracy against fascism, largely because Democratic nations that didn't have to fight joined the war in defence of other free nations.
If Ukraine loses it's not just Ukraine losing, it's pushing Putin's narrative that Western Democracies are stagnant, that their will is weak. All around the world that's going to nudge the needle away from freedom and encourage other autocrats to launch wars of conquest. If you want to prevent subsequent war and tyranny you must support Ukraine until victory.
Problem being that there was a clear path to peace back in march 2022 and that was stopped by the UK minister Boris Jhonson and now we're paying for it.
there's also the little detail that we've revealed that for years we have been lying to Putin above Peace deals like MINSK agreements (they were used to arm Ukraine and be used against Russia) by Angela Merkel herself.
Not only that but before the war began Putin's demands were very simple to adhere (Minks agreements to be implemented and negotiations for NATO membership revoked) that's it. We're already in a path in which Russia is very likely to win this war and Ukraine as we know it will change forever (landlocked maybe?).
"Not only that but before the war began Putin's demands were very simple to adhere (Minks agreements to be implemented and negotiations for NATO membership revoked)"
Gee why would former soviet states want to join NATO and why would Russia want to prevent that? Well, now we know why. Beyond all shadow of doubt.
"The main argument in favor of peace is to save lives and stop further destruction. It's a point of view favored by people who think that all wars are bad and killing people is something that should be avoided if at all possible."
That sounds nice, but some times you're invaded and your population is under threat of becoming subjects of a foreign dictatorship with disastrous consequences on countless measures of quality of life (health, freedom, socioeconomics etc.)- that incidentally also will go considerably beyond the immediate effects on the country being invaded.
Not all wars are worth avoiding considering the alternative. Russia started the war in Ukraine. They can end it at any moment if they have concerns about the loss of life.
Russia started the war in 2014. They just expanded its scope in 2022.
@DoomResetR4: I believe the war could have been prevented by proper diplomacy. Part of that strategy would have been to make it clear to Russia that Ukraine was not going to join NATO.
@Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussen: There are many benefits to joining NATO in addition to possibly deterring Russian aggression. (American dollars.) The problem is that Russia doesn't see the stationing of troops on its border as a defensive move. It sees it as a possible threat and a way of pressuring it to conform to NATO (i.e. American) demands.
I realize that the people in NATO countries don't have the same perspective but that's not the point. The way to prevent wars by diplomacy is to try and see how your enemy views your actions not how you view them.
@Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussen says, "Not all wars are worth avoiding considering the alternative. Russia started the war in Ukraine."
True, but the tricky part is trying to decide what realistic alternatives are available.
Yes, Russia would probably end the war right now if Ukraine gives up the territory it has already lost. It's not easy to weigh the consequences of that decision against what might happen if the war continues.
Many people believe that the NATO countries will continue to supply large amounts of military aid to Ukraine and that Ukraine will eventually take back all of the territory it lost. They believe that so strongly that they are willing to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to achieve that objective.
It looks like that's what is going to happen so we'll see in the next year whether that belief was justified.
@John Harshman said, "Russia started the war in 2014. They just expanded its scope in 2022."
Exactly. Russia easily took over Crimea and supported the rebels who captured large parts of Luhansk and Donetsk. Ukraine and NATO had plenty of warning about how far Russia was prepared to go to advance its goals. Maybe they thought that sanctions would be a sufficient deterrent?
@larry moran
I believe the war could have been prevented by proper diplomacy. Part of that strategy would have been to make it clear to Russia that Ukraine was not going to join NATO.
I'm sorry, but there's no other way to describe that statement but ignorant.
NATO will never admit a country that has a frozen conflict, especially not when that conflict is with Russia. NATO is a defensive alliance, but with a frozen conflict you're basically promising to enter an ongoing war, with Nuclear powered Russia. It was never even a remote possibility.
You know why Romania is a NATO member but not Moldova? Because Russia created a frozen conflict in Moldova when it created the separatist republic Transnistria. Without that not only would Moldova join NATO, they'd probably join Romania as well.
In April 2008 NATO promised to consider Georgia's NATO bid, and in August 2008 Russia invaded and created two separatist states in Georgia. NATO membership was now off the table because there was now a frozen conflict.
Aside from taking Crimea, the whole point of additionally creating the "separatist" states in 2014 was to create a frozen conflict and permanently block NATO membership (against the slight chance that Ukraine simply ceded Crimea).
If we're going to be honest, even if Ukraine retakes all of their occupied territory NATO membership is STILL a long shot. Sweden and Finland are barely making it in despite having no conflict with Russia. Even if Ukraine wins the war Russia will be claiming large portions of their territory, tensions will still be high, and some NATO members will be worried about a second war erupting.
They believe that so strongly that they are willing to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to achieve that objective.
I find this argument very offensive. You're acting like the welfare of Ukrainians is your main concern. But in reality you're completely ignoring what they want.
The west isn't sacrificing Ukrainian lives, Ukrainians are sacrificing their own lives to defend their country.
If you truly don't want to support them then so be it, but don't pretend like you're doing them a favour.
They believe that so strongly that they are willing to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to achieve that objective.
You really should be ashamed of that one, Larry. Do you think that Ukraine is acting as a Western puppet? That they have no desire to defend themselves from Russian aggression? You demean Ukraine and yourself.
Exactly. Russia easily took over Crimea and supported the rebels who captured large parts of Luhansk and Donetsk. Ukraine and NATO had plenty of warning about how far Russia was prepared to go to advance its goals. Maybe they thought that sanctions would be a sufficient deterrent?
Not sure where you're trying to go with that. Ukraine was under weak leadership and had a military poorly trained and equipped, and with poor morale in 2014. How is that relevant to the present situation? I will also say that "supported the rebels" is a euphemism. Yes, we had warning, but it was still hard to believe Putin would go as far as he did until he started massing troops on the border. Warnings didn't work and sanctions didn't work. But what makes you think diplomacy would have worked? Putin isn't interested in diplomacy unless it gives him what he wants. Ukrainian neutrality isn't the goal. Again, what's your point?
Here, again, is my point: resistance to aggression is both morally right and good policy. And the best diplomacy would have been to start arming Ukraine earlier than we did.
John Harshman says, "You really should be ashamed of that one, Larry. Do you think that Ukraine is acting as a Western puppet? That they have no desire to defend themselves from Russian aggression? You demean Ukraine and yourself."
The Ukrainians are bravely fighting for their country in the face of a Russian invasion. Thousands of innocent Ukrainian civilians have been killed and up to 100,000 troops have been killed and maimed. Million of Ukrainians have been turned into refugees from their homes and millions more have fled the country—many of them will never return. Ukrainian cities and infrastructure has been devastated. It will take years to rebuild.
The NATO nations have heaped praise on the Ukrainians for defending democracy and freedom against an evil dictator. They have declared that Putin is an existential threat. But apparently the defense of freedom and democracy isn’t important enough to risk the lives of NATO troops. Poland, Slovakia, and Romania have not sent brigades to fight alongside the Ukrainians in Zaporizhzhia or Kherson even though those three countries claim to be next on the list if Ukraine falls. None of the Baltic states have opened up a second front to relieve pressure on their Ukrainian friends. The United States has not sent squadrons of F15s to Ukraine to establish air superiority and protect Ukrainian forces.
The United States could have sent Carrier Strike Group-2 (CS-2) with its billion dollar aircraft carrier into the Black Sea where it could have blockaded Russian ports and prevented its navy from shelling Ukraine. Instead, the United States decided that it would defend democracy and freedom by sending it to the Red Sea where it could take potshots at Houthi motorboats. Another carrier group, with a $13 billion dollar aircraft carrier, was sitting in the Mediterranean to make sure that Iran didn’t misbehave.
Ukraine cannot fight this war on its own. In the absence of direct military support from NATO, it relies on aid in the form of money, supplies, and equipment. Up until now, the NATO countries have been sending just enough aid to ensure that Ukraine will not be conquered but not enough to have a realistic chance at victory.
So far, the aid has amounted to almost $200 billion with about one third coming from the United States. Now these countries are wondering whether this is too expensive an investment in defense of freedom and democracy. They are gradually coming to the realization that existential threats are very costly. If that aid doesn’t continue then Ukraine will be conquered so there’s no way to avoid the conclusion that Ukraine’s future is entirely in the hands of its allies. Calling Ukraine a “puppet” is too harsh and it’s also wise to avoid describing it as a NATO surrogate. But it’s also unwise to think that Ukraine is in control of its own destiny.
This in no way diminishes the bravery of the Ukrainian people. It does, however, in my mind diminish the reputation of all the NATO countries who have not lived up to their rhetoric. It is not an exaggeration to say that NATO countries are content to advance their own interests by seeing Ukrainians killed instead of their own people.
Ukraine now faces the very real possibility that the aid from NATO countries is going to dry up because the citizens of those countries are tired of the war in Ukraine. If that happens, Ukrainians are going to feel abandoned and betrayed because that’s exactly correct—they will be abandoned and betrayed. I believe that this is the most likely scenario and now is the time for Ukraine to make peace with Russia.
Larry,
But apparently the defense of freedom and democracy isn’t important enough to risk the lives of NATO troops. Poland, Slovakia, and Romania have not sent brigades to fight alongside the Ukrainians in Zaporizhzhia or Kherson even though those three countries claim to be next on the list if Ukraine falls. None of the Baltic states have opened up a second front to relieve pressure on their Ukrainian friends. The United States has not sent squadrons of F15s to Ukraine to establish air superiority and protect Ukrainian forces.
For very good reasons.
1) Poland, Slovakia, and Romania are not strong enough on their own to guarantee victory against Russia, you need a bigger player like France, Germany, or even the US.
2) Say Poland, Slovakia, and Romania aren't strong enough and Russia starts to take the fight to them, does that now mean that the rest of NATO has to defend them against Nuclear armed Russia?
3) If the US is suddenly distracted do China and North Korea think it's a good time to make a move? China can't save Russia, but they might be able to take and defend Taiwan.
A big lesson from WWI is once a few people start jumping in others follow and you get a very large war.
Believe me, I fantasize about western military forces coming in to save the day, but escalating against Nuclear armed Russia starts creating some 'Nuclear winter / collapse of civilization' tail risks which are better to avoid.
So far, the aid has amounted to almost $200 billion with about one third coming from the United States. Now these countries are wondering whether this is too expensive an investment in defense of freedom and democracy.
The Americans wouldn't even blink at $200B of extra military funding. The reluctance is entirely the doing of Trump-aligned pro-Russia Republicans.
It is not an exaggeration to say that NATO countries are content to advance their own interests by seeing Ukrainians killed instead of their own people.
Sure, but it's also not an exaggeration to say that Ukrainians would rather fight (and possibly die) than be subjugated, forced to speak Russian, and abandon their Ukrainian identity.
Btw, that argument does suggests that the threat to NATO countries is real.
Ukraine now faces the very real possibility that the aid from NATO countries is going to dry up because the citizens of those countries are tired of the war in Ukraine. If that happens, Ukrainians are going to feel abandoned and betrayed because that’s exactly correct—they will be abandoned and betrayed. I believe that this is the most likely scenario and now is the time for Ukraine to make peace with Russia.
Ok, so you're Putin. Why would you make peace? Just wait a couple years for the ammo to dry up and you get complete surrender. More rational is to make some public (but insincere) signals that you're interested in peace in order to undercut international support for Ukraine and keep pushing the offensive. Remember, Putin's background is an intelligence agent, misinformation is second nature.
I don't particularly want peace because it rewards Putin for a genocidal war of conquest, that's not only bad incentives but immoral. Far better to spend the money to ensure that the aggressor fails.
But even without that, I sincerely don't think Putin is interested in peace. He intends to fight until he controls all of Ukraine.
Larry, your position is becoming less coherent. You now seem to be criticizing NATO countries for not sending troops into the war, but your OP attacked Alexander for advocating for much less. And your idea of a diplomatic settlement — presumably imposed on a Ukraine that would never willingly agree to the massive loss of territory entailed by your suggested settlement — is similarly murky. Maybe we should get back to biology.
I've followed this blog for years and sometimes participated in the discussion. The posts have generally been relatively informed and intelligent, although it's always been clear that one should be skeptical because of the overconfident style and occasional lectures on topics the author seems to know nothing about.
This one shows such bad judgement that it's time to say goodbye to Sandwalk.
A classic 'I'm not sympathizing with Russia, but...' post.
It really is a shame.
Minor correction.
Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022. The Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives (and senate and presidency) until January 3, 2023.
If Democrats had wanted, aid could have been sent to Ukraine, despite Republican resistance, in any amount desired.
I am not defending anyone, just pointing out neither of the major parties can claim hero status in this scenario.
"Million of Ukrainians have been turned into refugees from their homes and millions more have fled the country"
Yep, 10 million displaced to be exact. The largest number since the Second World War. Add to that the 700,000 Ukrainian children abducted by Russia (Russia's own numbers, look it up), in order to re-educate them as Russians. Russia was officially been charged for genocide for the abductions by the ICC last year, and since that judgement they have apparently speeded up the process.
That's only the first count of genocide Russia is facing. There's the countless massacres of civilians like the one in Bucha, the tortures that took place (and are probably still taking place) in occupied territories, and the mass shooting and torture of prisoners of war. All well documented. If that wasn't enough, civilian targets in Ukraine - not military targets - are under constant daily shelling by Russia. This shelling is particularly vicious in Kherson and Kharkiv, which Russia considers its own territory, its own people.
These are just some of the many reasons the Ukrainians don't want peace with Russia. In their place, you wouldn't want it either. And that's without considering the fact that Putin would just use any peace treaty to rearm, and attack in even greater numbers.
As The Guardian pointed out today, the invasion of Ukraine is not something that is happening in isolation: "Europe is at war. It’s not fully at war in the way it was 80 years ago, when most European countries were directly engaged in combat, but it’s certainly not at peace in the way it was 20 years ago, before Putin set out on his path of confrontation with the west." We can't ignore the invasion of Ukraine as a local war because it is part of a campaign. For years Putin has sought to destabilise and divide the west by flooding the information space with divisive propaganda. And it has worked, you only need to look at how extreme right wing parties are dominating European and US politics right now.
I have never supported wars because, as you said, "killing people is something that should be avoided if at all possible", but that always left me wondering how I would have reacted in the late 1930s to the rise of Hitler. Now I know because history is repeating itself.
Oh, and in response to the last post by anonymous. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia began in February 2014 when the Russian army without insignia invaded Crimea.
And the Democrats did send aid to Ukraine until the Republican party turned the taps off, apparently on the orders of Donald Trump.
John Harshman says, "Larry, your position is becoming less coherent. You now seem to be criticizing NATO countries for not sending troops into the war, but your OP attacked Alexander for advocating for much less. And your idea of a diplomatic settlement — presumably imposed on a Ukraine that would never willingly agree to the massive loss of territory entailed by your suggested settlement — is similarly murky. Maybe we should get back to biology."
The issues are very complicated and it may be difficult to follow different threads in the argument.
Here's a brief summary of my position.
1. I think the war could have been avoided by diplomatic means. In my view, this would have required two things: (1) promising that Ukraine would never join NATO and NATO troops would never be stationed in Ukraine as long as Russia kept the agreement, and (2) if Russia breaks the accord and invades Ukraine, then NATO will move troops into Ukraine to support the Ukrainian army.
2. Once the Russian invasion began, NATO countries should have begun a massive aid effort that included sending troops and aircraft. NATO should have avoided declaring war and treated this as just a "special operation."
3. Instead, NATO took the position that it would send money and supplies and impose economic sanctions. But it would not send troops. It made this decision in spite of the fact that the Russian invasion was advertised as a threat to freedom and democracy around the world.
4. The economic sanctions haven't worked because most countries have ignored them. This represents a significant diplomatic failure on the part of NATO countries. The attempt to stave off the Russian occupation of large parts of Ukraine by just sending money and supplies hasn't worked either. It looks like the idea that Ukraine could reconquer Crimea and the Donbas based on that level of support is just wishful thinking bordering on the delusional.
5. There's a real danger that even the inadequate support that NATO has sent so far is going to dry up or be drastically reduced in the future. That means that Ukraine might lose even more territory—Ukrainian resistance could even collapse.
6. Since NATO has repeatedly demonstrated that they are not going to do what's necessary to defend Ukraine against Russia, now is the time for Ukraine to make peace even if it means giving up territory. It's up to Ukrainians to make that decision but it's up to NATO countries to stop pretending that they are ever going to commit the resources that allow Ukraine to defeat Russia (or even hold on the the territory they now occupy).
7. The article that I was criticizing (see OP) advocated a number of steps that could have been taken two years ago but now they are just silly. It ain't gonna happen. It also advocated some other steps (e.g. kicking Russia out of the Security Council) that make no sense.
The most important point is that no matter how much we sympathize with the Ukrainians and hate Putin, and no matter how many times we say that this is just like stopping Hitler, if we aren't willing to put our money where our mouth is then don't encourage Ukraine to continue a war that they cannot win. Don't make public statements saying that your country will do whatever it takes to stop Russia if you don't mean it. I hate hypocrisy, especially when it's costing lives.
According to an article in the Toronto Star and The Canadian Press, 23% of Canadians want to send less aid to Ukraine, 34% want to maintain the current levels, and 25% want to send more aid.
During Zelensky's visit to Ottawa last fall, our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, said, "Canada will stand with Ukraine with whatever it takes, for as long as it takes. As Ukrainians continue to fight for their freedom and their democracy, our support will be unequivocal until they are victorious. Slava Ukraini!"
Like many Canadians, I sympathize with this view but, also like many Canadians, I don't believe my Prime Minister will actually do whatever it takes for as long as it takes and I don't think the Ukrainians should believe this either.
According to a Gallop poll from last October, 41% of Americans think that the United States is sending too much aid to Ukraine, 33% think it's the right amount, and 25% think it's not enough.
Last December President Biden said, "The stakes of this fight extend far beyond Ukraine. They affect the entirety of the NATO Alliance, the security of Europe, and the future of the Transatlantic relationship. Putin has not just attempted to destroy Ukraine; he has threatened some of our NATO Allies as well. When dictators and autocrats are allowed to run roughshod in Europe, the risk rises that the United States gets pulled in directly. And the consequences reverberate around the world. That’s why the United States has rallied a coalition of more than 50 countries to support the defense of Ukraine. We cannot let our allies and partners down. We cannot let Ukraine down. History will judge harshly those who fail to answer freedom’s call."
I like Joe Biden and I think he's being very honest. If Ukraine loses this war by failing to take back its territory then history will judge the United States harshly. I think the Ukrainians will also harshly judge that coalition of 50 countries that let them down.
Larry,
#1 Do you mean the war that started in 2014, or the war that started in 2022? If you mean the war from 2014 it was a surprise invasion, there's was no opportunity to negotiate. If you mean the war in 2022 then there was already a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO so your deal makes no sense.
2. Aircraft and more weapons (for the Ukrainians) sure. Troops? Now you have a shooting war between NATO and Russia, and that Nuclear war tail risk becomes a real concern.
4 / 5. Mostly agree
6. I'm very doubtful that Putin would take that deal. Putin thought he could take Kyiv in a weekend and has kept the goals as 'regime change' (install a puppet and make Ukraine a vassal state). Why wouldn't he assume that he can just grind Ukraine into total capitulation?
There's also signs that Europe (and even Canada) are starting to pick up the slack since the US has stepped back. This is still largely an artillery war and Ukraine has better guns, at this point a steady supply of artillery shells might be all that Ukraine needs to win.
Since 2022 the narrative has gone from "Ukraine will collapse in days" to "the Russian front is collapsing" to "Russia is crumbling under artillery fire" to "the Ukrainian army is crumbling".
Give Ukraine a steady supply of shells, something to hit the Kerch bridge, and add in the F-16s and the narrative can change again.
"3. Instead, NATO took the position that it would send money and supplies and impose economic sanctions. But it would not send troops. It made this decision in spite of the fact that the Russian invasion was advertised as a threat to freedom and democracy around the world."
Have you lost your mind? The whole point of NATO is that it's supposed to be a defensive alliance, and that the whole bullshit about being scared of having NATO troops on your border is bullshit.
And yet when and if NATO (as in officially the alliance, not just individual member states) has on rare occasion actually intervened in foreign affairs, this is being held against them as if proof it's an aggressor rather than defensive alliance (damned if you do, damned if you don't.) No, I completely understand why NATO has not intervened, and why they have also insisted many of the weapons sent to Ukraine are not to be used against target inside Russia (even though I actually disagree with this part, Russia being the aggressor in the conflict absolutely opens them up for having their infrastructure and military bases become targets to Ukrainian attacks no matter where Ukraine's weapons were originally built).
"6. Since NATO has repeatedly demonstrated that they are not going to do what's necessary to defend Ukraine against Russia, now is the time for Ukraine to make peace even if it means giving up territory."
The problem isn't this simple. There's a lag-time at work between taking action and those actions taking effect. Many NATO countries began ramping up production of munitions (particularly artillery), but that takes time. Decommissioned factories were bought back by various governments and reopened, other factories began expanding, but getting the right people back and ensuring supply lines etc. takes time. This rate of production still hasn't reached optimal levels and has taken longer than hoped. We can agree it should have happened sooner, but that isn't the same as saying it isn't happening or that it won't make any difference in the future. Ukraine has been promised fighters (and are actively training in their use in multiple NATO counties), but they have still not arrived. Again it took a while for the western nations to agree to this, but they eventually did, and then there's the lag-time for training and infrastructure around this that needs to happen first.
Then there's Republicans in the US. The alliance can hardly be blamed for the extreme dysfunctionality in the minds of many US conservatives.
Another factor you're not considering Larry. Putin had it signed into Russian law that the partially annexed Ukrainian territories Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizjzja, and Luhansk, are Russian territory. Part of the motherland. But they are partially annexed. Ukraine still has considerable portions of these territories. A large portion of Kherson, which lies on the other side of the Dniepr is still under Ukrainian control. Are we to believe Putin would agree to a deal that requires him to sign off territory he himself has signed into the Russian constitution as belonging to Russia? That's he's promised to denazify to protect the ethnic Russians living there? That is delusional.
Hi Larry,
I was just reading your first entry in this thread. I have known a few Canadian diplomats and I thought they were fairly competent. Chris Alexander sounds raving mad. I think I see why. If wiki is correct, he was posted to Moscow between 1993 and 1996.
In the 1990's the Russian Federation was one very small step away from a failed state. The economy had tanked, life expectancy, particularly among males, dropped precipitously, and a combination of Western crooks and Russian oligarchs were looting anything they could find. There were gang shootouts in the streets of Moscow and St Petersburg. I have read that Western businessmen needed bodyguards to avoid being kidnapped and held for ransom. The Russian navy could not afford enough fuel to put to sea.
I think that Alexander thinks that the current Russia is in the same state as it was when he was there. This seems true for a lot of US Russian “experts” who advise the White House. It, likely, is true for Chrystia Freeland as well. They have not been back to Russia in 25 years or more.
The “wide knowledge” of various Western military commentators is laughable. It seems to be based on myths from WWII—which myths usually were written by defeated German Generals—Tom Clancy novels and who knows what else. Some of Alexander's suggestions might have worked in 1995, today, there is not a hope.
Unfortunately for these “experts”, Russia has changed drastically. It is now a very major industrial and military power and a major producer of many different natural resources from oil to wheat. In 2021 Russia was one of the world's largest wheat exporters, exporting considerably more than Ukraine.
It has carried out some pretty drastic military reforms after the first Chechen war and a lot of fine tuning after the second Chechen war and that little spat with Georgia where it took Russia three or four days to defeat the Georgians.
BTW, you suggest in a later post, “The United States could have sent Carrier Strike Group-2 (CS-2) with its billion dollar aircraft carrier into the Black Sea where it could have blockaded Russian ports and prevented its navy from shelling Ukraine.”
No. At the start of hostilities, Türkiye, under the Montreaux Convention, immediately closed the Dardanelles to any navel vessel that was not home-ported in the Black Sea or Sea of Azov.
Also the life expectancy of a carrier, or even a whole carrier group, would probably be measured in minutes if Russia decided it was an actual threat. Anti-ship missiles especially Russian ones have made aircraft carriers obsolete in a modern war against a competent modern foe. This is especially true in in a fairly confined area like the Black Sea. They are great for bombing somebody whose most powerful weapon in a 12-guage shotgun or an AK-47.
As a christian I oppose any involement of cAnada with killing people in this war. canada has no credibility about boundaries like the rest of the western world. anyways putin is the invador and the bad guy. nevertheless they simply must negotiate including lost territory. tHis because human life is of more value then land. Otherwise the killing can go on and on.god said Do not murder. Except in seflf defence of life all wat is murdrer in gOs eyes. nOt mans of coarse.
its such a disator the reagan legacy of destroying the Sovier Union, both Russia and Ukraine. buddies, and its a failure, though difficult problems, of the leadership of all in the english speaking world establishment. all that past history and they are worthless in moral and practical efforts to stop this disastor that could get worse.
1. "I think the war could have been avoided by diplomatic means ..."
False. (A) Russia's invasion had little or nothing to do with NATO membership. That was Russian propaganda to give them an excuse, they have changed their supposed motivations many times since. (B) Right up to the day of the invasion (the 2022 version, as aluchko pointed out) Russia was denying that it had any plans to invade. So what could we have negotiated with? It was already done. If Putin had wanted a deal to avoid NATO expansion, Russia would have threatened without invading.
2. "NATO countries should have begun ... sending troops and aircraft."
No, if that had happened, we would already be in the middle of World War III.
4. "The economic sanctions haven't worked ..."
Correct. But I am struggling to think of any economic sanctions that have ever worked. There are chokepoints that might have helped (machine tools for military use, for example), but they haven't been applied.
5. "There's a real danger that even the inadequate support that NATO ... is going to dry up"
Support is at a low right now because of technical reasons in Europe and because of Trump-inspired political in-fighting in the US. In theory, once those problems are solved, support will increase, rather than dry up. But this is Russia's external gambit. If they can sow sufficient disinterest/confusion among people preoccupied with their own (real or invented) problems, they might get Trump elected and enough neo-fascists installed in the European Parliament to slow things down in Europe.
6. "now is the time for Ukraine to make peace even if it means giving up territory."
This is not an option. I think I already explained why the Ukrainians are never going to make peace with the Russians. I can provide more examples, but this is a biology blog. Even if we could force peace without their permission, it would be akin to suing for peace with Hitler half way through the conquering of Europe. Putin will just use the breathing space of a peace treaty to re-arm, so he can start all over again, but with a bigger army and more missiles.
"Don't make public statements saying that your country will do whatever it takes to stop Russia if you don't mean it. I hate hypocrisy, especially when it's costing lives."
Sure, Canada and everyone else could do more. If this is just talk and nothing comes of it, it is hypocrisy. Right now, most countries have sent smaller amounts of older surplus arms to the Ukraine. Some countries are doing more. Denmark just gave ALL its artillery to Ukraine. No-one is going to send their armies to Ukraine though, because that would just cost even more lives.
The invasion is not going away. There are only two possible ends, either Ukraine will collapse, or Russia will collapse. Neither looks very likely at the moment. Russia is banking on convincing the West to lose interest. Ukraine is banking on the Russian losses becoming so great that they are unsustainable. Convincing the Ukrainians to sue for peace is part of the Russian strategy to win. The Russians are almost certainly not interested in peace themselves at the moment, but it may be a useful fallback strategy, if elections don't go the Russians way this year. However, by themselves the calls for peace are also useful as a way of weakening support for Ukraine. Especially as they are repeated by influential people like Trump and Musk.
@aluchko: I wanted to focus on things we could have done to stop the 2022 invasion but that doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be learned from what happened before that.
I understand the fact that deploying NATO troops in Ukraine would have meant direct conflict between NATO and Russia in 2022. I think there were ways that it could have been done by using NATO forces from neighboring countries and pretending that they were only there to support Ukraine. NATO should have made it clear to Russia that they would do this if Russia invaded and NATO should have been prepared to back up such a threat.
I understand that many of you are convinced that Putin will never agree to a negotiated deal at the present time. I assume that there are secret back channel discussions going on right now so the expert diplomats probably know the answer. The signs seem to indicate that they think a deal is possible.
@Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussen says, "No, I completely understand why NATO has not intervened, and why they have also insisted many of the weapons sent to Ukraine are not to be used against target inside Russia ..."
I also understand why NATO turned out to be all bluster with no substance. It's clear that Russia understood this as well. America and the other NATO countries are not going to do all it takes to defend freedom and democracy.
You seem to believe that the NATO countries actually ARE going to do what's necessary to ensure a Ukrainian victory. You think they can do it without risking their troops; it's just that the aid is taking longer than we anticipated to start making a difference.
You say, "Then there's Republicans in the US. The alliance can hardly be blamed for the extreme dysfunctionality in the minds of many US conservatives."
As another citizen of a NATO country that's not the US, I can assure you that diplomats in those other countries are constantly evaluating whether the politics in America will allow it to deliver on its rhetoric and promises. I'm pretty sure that the government of Denmark does this. I would blame those diplomats if they based their policies on the assumption that America would continue to deliver billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine. Diplomates are supposed to be aware of the political situations in the countries of their enemies AND their allies.
You claim that Putin is committed to taking over the territory on the other side of the Dnipro that Russia withdrew from last year. You declare that I am "delusional" for thinking that Russia would sign a deal before reconquering that territory. I don't think calling me "delusional" is very helpful but, in any case, we might see if you are correct in the next few months.
I'm guessing that you are completely opposed to exploring a possible peace treaty at the present time because there's no chance that Russia would agree, right?
In the Old Testament Yahweh did not hesitate in ordering slaughter.
-César
Mikkel Rumracket Rasmussen says, "This idea that Russia doesn't want Lviv or whatever is borderline delusional."
Nobody really knows what Putin's original goals were but none of the announced goals included conquering all of Ukraine. Putin repeatedly stated that his main goal was a neutral Ukraine that was not part of NATO. Furthermore, most military experts seem to agree that Russia has not committed anywhere near the kind of resources that would be required to occupy all of western Ukraine. Some of them even doubt that taking Odessa was a realistic goal.
I don't think it's helpful to label everyone who disagrees with you as "delusional."
We don't know what Putin's current goals are or whether they have changed. Here's some articles that discusses this issue in a way that doesn't look delusional to me. They try to separate the rhetoric from the reality and that's not easy. Both sides of this conflict are saying all kinds of things that really are close to delusional but good diplomats know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Putin’s War of Vanishing Goals
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/putins-war-vanishing-goals
Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia
WHAT IS RUSSIA’S THEORY OF VICTORY IN UKRAINE?
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-theory-of-victory-in-ukraine/
Putin’s War of Vanishing Goals
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/putins-war-vanishing-goals
Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia
WHAT IS RUSSIA’S THEORY OF VICTORY IN UKRAINE?
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-theory-of-victory-in-ukraine/
Notice that these are all Western sources. Western sources, so far have had a 100% record of being wrong. Remember the famous "The Rouble will be Rubble"?
I would recommend following the advice of retired Canadian Russian analyst Patrick Armstrong who says LISTEN TO WHAT HE’S SAYING.
Even the Tucher Carlson interview is interesting although Putin did not say anything he had not said before.
by the way. for the record. Putin did a interview withy a american journalist of importance. Tucker carlson. he simply makes the case Ukraine never had a right to these lands and hardly a right to a separate existence from Eussia. they all say these things in those places and Ukraine recently said this about Ukrainians living in border areas in russia. all the boundaries have been fuzzy and nobody has a hard lands claims. Thats not issue however. The boundarys are legitimate. Then the more imporetant issue of one side killing people to get their way. Yes Putin brings up nato was not friendly to post soviet union Russia and was to Ukraine and Poland and others. so he suggests this makes a threat but i doubt it was a sincere motive.
There was great failure of the important nations, although difficult matters we must remmber,and are posters here doing a better job. No.
@Larry
There has been a continuous shooting war since 2014, deploying neighbouring forces from neighbouring countries would have been to deploy them to an active war zone (if even to rear areas). Which is a definite stretch for a defensive alliance.
And even assuming Poland was willing to risk its troops Putin might have decided to invade anyway and make an example of a NATO army. Either way, it hardly changes the discussion today.
Remember, we know Putin's original plans:
- Annex a bunch of Ukrainian territory, including Kyiv
- Install a pro-Russian puppet in the remaining territory (if any) and add that rump to the Russian Union State (with Belarus) (ie, the new USSR).
So what evidence do we have that he has changed plans? Some vague diplomatic chatter and Russian aligned politicians blaming NATO and Ukraine for killing peace deals. That's pretty predictable misinformation from a leader famous for it.
But lets take it seriously and assume a peace deal based on current borders. There's two main scenarios:
1) Ukraine "demilitarizes" in exchange for security guarantees. This is insane from Ukraine's perspective since Russia already broke a security guarantee. The only way Ukraine possibly contemplates it is if they get loaded up with NATO troops... which is a non-starter for Putin.
2) Ukraine and Russia simply stop fighting. Now you have a virulently anti-Russia Ukraine getting armed and trained to the teeth by NATO. There's even a very small chance they join NATO, unlikely, though vaguely possible if they don't dispute the lost territory (too big a chance for Putin anyway). Regardless, you've lost your chance of taking the whole of Ukraine and rebuilding the USSR... so again, a non-starter for Putin.
The only peace deal that possibly makes sense is #2, and that only happens if Putin knows he's getting no more territory and is worried that his own forces will collapse. And at that point Ukraine would be tempted to fight on and the west would be willing to fund it.
Honestly, I don't see the incentives for either side to seek a peace deal at this point, the only people talking peace are the ones using it as an excuse to cut off Ukraine.
Post a Comment