In ancient Greek myth, Scylla and Charybdis were two sea monsters that inhabited the Straits of Messina between Sicily and the Italian mainland. The phrase “between Scylla and Charybdis” means being caught between two unpleasant alternatives. Defense policy expert Benjamin Friedman’s advice in his piece at UnHerd presents two alternatives, each of which is undoubtedly unacceptable to Western countries:
U.S. and European leaders repeat the talking point that the terms and timing of peace should be up to Ukraine. Western support should be automatic and unquestioning, they imply. But there are both strategic and humanitarian reasons why this is the wrong approach.
First, trying to weaken Russia is probably counterproductive, past a point, to NATO countries’ security. Russia has dashed itself on the rocks in Ukraine, losing a chunk of its fighting force, degrading its military morale, and demonstrating shocking military deficiencies. This weakness makes it quite unlikely to invade another country soon. Maybe some further humbling could help, but Russia is not going to disappear as an energy exporter that can fund a substantial military force and large nuclear arsenal. Endless sanctions and continual proxy wars will create a resentful garrison state, with more revanchist nationalism and desire for payback.
Second, encouraging Ukraine to hold out for a full victory may be bad for the country itself. Of course, Ukraine should be best positioned to judge what’s best for it. But, on the other hand, Ukraine’s political situation may make it impossible for any Ukrainian leader to accept the limits of what war can achieve. And what Ukrainians want depends in some sense on what their sponsors will bankroll.
Pre-invasion Ukraine is instructive. Since 2014, when Russia seized Crimea and stoked insurgency in Donbas, Ukraine’s perilous circumstances suggested a compromise with Russia, by accepting neutrality, giving up on Crimea, and implementing Minsk II, which effectively meant allowing rebel areas autonomy. This was never a great deal for Ukraine, except compared to the alternatives: being endlessly menaced or invaded.
After this deal, the U.S. went on about “ironclad support†and held out the prospect of NATO membership. This was gross negligence, not just because Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership was at once a chimera and provocative to Russia, but because it tempted Kyiv’s belief that western support would prevent the need for painful compromise.
I presume that the Western preference would be for Putin just to go away. Or for Russia just to go away. I doubt that either of those are realistic prospects.
The larger question is whether ceding Western foreign and defense policy to Ukraine is prudent either for the countries of the West or for Ukraine?
The US, which has absolute control over all aspects of “Western” policy, intends to dismember Russia into pliable statelets, and seize control of its assets, both natural and industrial. So, the war in Ukraine is existential for Russia. It must win unequivocally.
Whether “Russia has dashed itself on the rocks in Ukraine, losing a chunk of its fighting force, degrading its military morale, and demonstrating shocking military deficiencies” is a matter of debate. The fighting is occurring on Ukrainian territory, and Ukraine only reoccupies those areas that Russia first leaves. Even the Nazis in the Azovstahl mill are slowly surrendering.
As long as the fighting goes on, there is a real chance of escalation into a general European and North American war. Russia has promised that it will attack the homeland of any country that makes war on it.
The pending accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is, in fact, an escalation, not of the fighting, but of the existential threat to Russia. We almost fought a nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuban. Does anyone expect that Russia will meekly accept NATO armies within quick striking distance of its major strategic bases like Severomorsk in Murmansk oblast and the Kola Peninsula? Would the US accept a Russia army next to the San Diego Naval Base or next to the Norfolk Naval Station?
Perhaps Turkey will stop the NATO expansion, as it has threatened. Sweden and Finland both support The Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C) and The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which are regarded to be terrorist organizations in Turkey. Sweden and Finland will have to expel those groups if they really want to be in NATO.
WW I began when Russia mobilized its army in 1914, and that war entailed WW II. WW III will begin when American troops, as part of NATO, are within quick striking distance of Severomorsk naval station.
I’m not sure that “control” is the right word. It implies volition. I think that both the U. S. and Russia are captives of their own official rhetoric. That’s what makes the present situation so dangerous.
The US didnt attack. It was a war of aggression by Russia. It made it clear to countries like Finland and Sweden that the only way to be safe while next to Russia is to belong to NATO. I dont see how we are ceding policy to Ukraine. We are supporting Ukraine but we arent going to war. If Ukraine decides to stop fighting we arent going to start.
Steve