I wanted to bring Samuel Charap’s article in Foreign Affairs about concluding the war in Ukraine to your attention. Here’s its conclusion:
An endgame premised on an armistice would leave Ukraine—at least temporarily—without all its territory. But the country would have the opportunity to recover economically, and the death and destruction would end. It would remain locked in a conflict with Russia over the areas occupied by Moscow, but that conflict would play out in the political, cultural, and economic domains, where, with Western support, Ukraine would have advantages. The successful reunification of Germany, in 1990, another country divided by terms of peace, demonstrates that focusing on nonmilitary elements of the contestation can produce results. Meanwhile, a Russian-Ukrainian armistice would also not end the West’s confrontation with Russia, but the risks of a direct military clash would decrease dramatically, and the global consequences of the war would be mitigated.
Many commentators will continue to insist that this war must be decided only on the battlefield. But that view discounts how the war’s structural realities are unlikely to change even if the frontline shifts, an outcome that itself is far from guaranteed. The United States and its allies should be capable of helping Ukraine simultaneously on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. Now is the time to start.
I suspect that some readers will side with the “many commentators” above. Has any country ever given another country such a blank check?
Mr. Charap neglects to mention that there are reasons not to trust Ukraine unreservedly. There have been reports that weapons sent to Ukraine have made their way to Africa and even to Mexico. Others deny these reports with equal vehemence. There have also been complaints about Ukrainian corruption made by U. S. companies. The best retorts to these seem to be that it’s better than it used to be.
To start what, exactly?
Neither Russia nor Ukraine is currently interested in a negotiated ceasefire or settlement. The West and the US cannot change that basic fact. It is Russia and Ukraine that are insisting this gets decided on the battlefield.
The most we can do is use our assistance as leverage to attempt to force Ukraine to talk to the Russians – but the Russians aren’t interested in talking unless Ukraine capitulates.
I do agree with the structural realities in that neither side will likely be able to realize its war goals. In order for the combatants to see that reality, they have to shed more blood – it’s not something that can be forced on them by third parties.
Russia’s remains publicly committed (1) to denying Ukraine membership in NATO, (2) to demilitarizing it, (3) to removing the Nazi elements who currently control the regime, and (4) to keeping all of the Donbas and Crimea. They would approve EU membership for the rump state (if any). The Russian people regard this war as existential for Russia, and 80% of them support the war and Putin’s conduct of it. The Russian public is driving this war now, they, not Putin and his colleagues.
The best way to look at this is that the Russians regard the war with Ukraine the same way the Brits regarded the war against Germany, and how the Americans the war against Japan.
The population of Ukraine today is estimated to be less than 20 million. It was 44 million in 1992. Most of the people left for the EU, and some to the RF, when independence was declared; another group left after the coup; and more left after the war began. The emigrants were mostly young men, which is the universal migration pattern throughout history.
Ukraine also lost most of its industry, much of which is either under Russian control or destroyed. Its farming sector is deeply depressed.
Add to this, Polish (especially), Hungarian, and Romanian politicians keep saying they have historic rights to parts of western Ukraine.
On the other hand, nowadays the Russian population is 7 to 8 times as large as Ukraine’s, and it still has its young people. Russia’s economy is the 4th to 6th largest in the world, vying with Japan, and its industrial sector is nearly 70% the size of the US’ and thoroughly modern and comprehensive. There is no country on Earth that makes a wider range of things than does Russia. Just a few years ago American astronauts rode to the ISS in Soyuz capsules, and we are still using Russian rocket motors to put our spy satellites into orbit.
Russia sits on the greatest store of natural resources in the world, and it become one of the largest food exporters.
Just who do you think s going to win this war? Who is going to set the terms? Anyone have a guess?
The real structural realities indicate that a Russian victory is inevitable. The only way to prevent it is if the US resorts to nuclear war.
By the way, the Taiwan issue continues to simmer. Are we ready for that.
And the North Koreans are the Joker in the deck
” But the country would have the opportunity to recover economically, and the death and destruction would end. ”
Only until Russia invaded again. They would just make some trumped up, unbelievable claim like Ukraine is run by Nazis.
Steve
“They would just make some trumped up, unbelievable claim like Ukraine is run by Nazis.”
You mean unbelievable claims which result in stories in the New York Times titled Nazi Symbols on Ukraine’s Front Lines Highlight Thorny Issues of History.
I wouldn’t claim Ukraine is run by Nazis. But elements of Ukraine’s army and pre-war para-militias which were incorporated into the Army do glorify Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany.
1. It is not possible to sport Nazi insignia without claiming some sort of affiliation with Nazi Germany.
2. The NYT has documented that Ukrainian army units and militia are wearing such insignia.
3. They have also documented that Western journalists have been actively concealing that.
As I have mentioned before based on election results 20% – 30% of Ukrainians are neo-Nazis.–the most of any European country. Like CO I don’t think that the country is “run by Nazis”. But I do think they’re part of the ruling coalition.
There are Russian fighters with NAZi insignia, not just the Wagner Group. It has more to do with international solider of fortune/ paramilitary culture than any political movement.
There is a long, documented history of Nazi-fascist leanings in parts of Ukrainian culture and population, particularly the nationalists. These did not magically disappear once the war started, although reporting of them has.
While it’s understandable that Ukraine, in an existential war, will accept help from any quarter, including nationalist neo-Nazi’s, the attempts by westerners to white-wash this are pretty stupid.
My claim was specific. Nazis are not running Ukraine, as claimed by Russians and their supporters. There are some new-nazis in the ranks but if you add up the numbers of Ukrainians killed or deported (those also largely died) it’s understandable that there is some nostalgic support. When you add up the number of people killed from the 30s, including the deliberate famine into the near post-war era, the communists killed more Ukrainians than the Nazis. There remains strong nostalgia of the communists in Russia but that rarely gets mentioned. So….
1) it is not possible to wear Russian insignia without claiming some sort of affiliation with communist Russia.
2) The NYT has documented Russian soldiers wearing Russian insignia.
3) Western journalists fail repeatedly to write stories about the horrors of Russia decimating the Ukraine population.
This is much more complicated than Nazis are bad.
Steve
“This is much more complicated than Nazis are bad. ”
Of course it is. That doesn’t excuse the various propaganda efforts that try to whitewash these elements of Ukrainian society in the service of making Ukraine look like a good guy.
I don’t see the world in stark black and white but in shades of gray. If we need the good guys to wear white hats and the bad guys to wear black hats, we will inevitably be disappointed.
The Ukrainians are not good guys. They are good in some ways and bad in others. That’s true of the Russians, too. In fact they are mostly good and bad in the same ways. The big differences are that Russia has three times Ukraine’s population and invaded Ukraine.
Wow! No. The big differences are….
1) The Russians have a history of killing millions of Ukrainians. The Ukrainians have no history, in last couple hundred years, of killing Russians.
2) The Russians have a history of invading other countries and trying to form empires.
3) The Russians invaded a sovereign country that was neither planning nor had the means to attack Russia.
4) Ukraine is defending itself against a country which has invaded its territory and has shown that once it controls the country will kill more people.
On Ukraines side, some of its people have glorified the Nazis of the past for their perceived role in ridding the country of the communists who decimated them. While this is a distorted perception of history, Russia really did decimate them but the Nazis were not really liberators, this hasn’t lead to them invading and killing people in other countries. Yes, both sides are gray but you are generating a horrible false equivalence.
“That doesn’t excuse the various propaganda efforts that try to whitewash these elements of Ukrainian society”
Agree that we should not whitewash, but we should provide the entire context which includes the history of Russians killing millions of Ukrainians. People should know why some people glommed onto new-Naziism.
Steve
You’re thinking of the Soviet Union while ruled by a Georgian.
I am thinking of the Russian empire called the USSR. The empire did allow for people other than Russians to rule but that did not make it a Russian empire. Besides which the power still resided in Russia.
Steve
The USSR was first and foremost a Communist empire.
Communism (as practiced by Lenin, Trotsky, etc.) explicitly rejects the idea of one primary political allegiance is to the nation (as in nationalism), but to the class or to the party — which explicitly goes across nations.
Saying the USSR was another form of the Russian Empire misunderstand the nature of the October Revolution and the resulting Civil War was about.