Now that nearly a year has passed in the war in Ukraine, I think we should be able to agree that the best possible outcome is out of reach. The best possible outcome, of course, was Russia not invading Ukraine at all but failing that for Russia’s incursion to be limited in scope and duration and that Ukraine’s borders would return to their pre-2014 extent.
So, now what’s the least unacceptable but achievable outcome in Ukraine? I think it would be a negotiated settlement in which
- Ukraine’s borders return to the pre-2014 extent
- Russian access to the port at Sevastopol is guaranteed for a lengthy period
- The rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine are guaranteed
- The rebuilding of Ukraine is largely undertaken by the Europeans
I guess that some would call that “appeasement” but as I see things it’s pragmatic. It assumes that Putin is as good as his word and essentially calls his bluff. It includes face-saving measures both for Ukraine and Russia. I do not think that complete Ukrainian victory is in the U. S. interest. Quite to the contrary it comes with risks of its own. I do not think a Russia without access to the Black Sea that has fallen into chaos, is even more nationalistic and aggressive than at present, or fragments into a dozen landlocked statelets is in the U. S. interest.
What would the least unacceptable but achievable outcome in Ukraine be?
The odds it goes back to pre-2014 borders through a negotiated settlement is 0. There’s a non-zero chance it could be imposed via military force.
Fundamentally, the population in Crimea and the Russian held parts of Ukraine are Pro-Russian. There would be horrific genocide / ethnic cleansing if Kiev/Kyiv actually regained control over them. No government in Russia will accept a negotiated settlement on those lines; it would have to be imposed on it.
Beyond that, too much blood has been spilled, the settlement suggested (but excluding Crimea) may have been achievable before the war, or in the first month of in the war if it had been coupled with long sought guarantees by Russia regarding Ukraine’s neutrality, and an agreement on US force posture in Eastern Europe.
Now, I don’t think the Russians will be willing to settle for anything less then current lines which has strategic value with the overland bridge to Crimea and creates a buffer around it. After the attack on Kerch bridge and Ukrainian attacks on Sevastopol, the risk to Russia of not having that buffer in the next war is too great.
With a negotiated settlement, it is probably something like the current lines and with formal Ukrainian neutrality but de jure part of NATO.
With an imposed settlement, the skies the limit through it gets pretty murky on the risk of having most of the Northern Hemisphere being a nuclear wasteland if Ukraine/NATO breaks the land bridge; and Ukraine part of NATO. If the Russians regain win on the battlefield, then its probably something like loss of the rest Zaporizhzhia and Donbas oblast, formal recognition of Russia’s gains and real neutrality for Ukraine.
The chances of a negotiated settlement before 2015 is very low and decreasing.
That’s why I said there should be guarantees of the rights of ethnic Russians. What sort of guarantees? I was thinking in terms of third party peacekeepers.
Does that qualify as a “least unacceptable outcome”? I think that’s an outright loss for Ukraine.
If your point is that U. S./NATO/Ukraine are overplaying their hand, I think that’s right. I think the Ukrainians should have pressed to negotiate when they were getting victories.
The best would have been for the US to leave in place the legitimate, democratically elected government of Yanukovych. But the neocons would have none of that and started us on the path to this war. They did that deliberately and knowingly. They wanted this war, because they thought it would weaken Russia.
Russia will win this war and impose terms. Most likely, they will annex all the ethnic Russian regions (including Odessa), and they will insist the rump Ukraine be demilitarized and neutral.
This is a war between Russia and the US. Ukraine is merely American colonial troops, and expendable. Should the neocons continue to escalate American involvement, the war will spread throughout Europe and North America. In that eventuality, it will go nuclear.
“That’s why I said there should be guarantees of the rights of ethnic Russians” and “Ukraine’s borders return to the pre-2014 extent” are mutually exclusive conditions in practice.
Is there a way to actually enforce “the rights of ethnic Russians” on the Ukrainian government. Ukraine had 2014-2022 to do so and they did not, and obviously their enmity towards ethnic Russians is much worse now. And which 3rd party would actually enforce it; Merkel and Hollande said Minsk was a ruse to buy Ukraine time — which Putin has recently noted. The Russians wouldn’t counternance any EU / NATO country, and doubtful any country where Americans have strong influence. Russia might trust Belarus or other CSTO peacekeepers but Ukraine would treat that as tantamount surrender of sovereignty to those regions.
That’s why the fighting goes on; there’s no overlap in minimum acceptable outcomes. Eventually the fighting should cause one side to move their minimum acceptable outcomes or collapse so an imposed solution can occur.
Perhaps a better framework is to rank what are mutually unacceptable outcomes — maybe there is some willingness on both sides to avoid those scenarios.
The big question is least unacceptable to whom?
It’s hard for me to spend time thinking about fantasy scenarios where Russia withdrawals to the pre-2014 boundaries. Russia will never willingly give Crimea up, for example, and the only way that happens is if Russia is decisively defeated. And if we were on the cusp of that, then Russian nuclear use becomes a real possibility. Crimea was annexed in 2014, and from the Russian perspective, it is Russian territory and has always be Russian territory and it only ended up as part of Ukraine because of an administrative border change under the USSR.
Anyway, I don’t know what the least unacceptable outcome that is also realistic would be. This will be driven by events on the ground and the political and military developments in this war. Both sides have escalated their demands and there is no least unacceptable outcome at present.
Under the Yanukovych government, which bob correctly points out was the last freely and legitimately elected government of Ukraine, Russia had a lengthy lease on their port in Crimea and when the putsch removed the Yanukovych government, the new nationalist Ukrainian government immediately began signalling that it wanted the Russians out of Crimea. That’s when Russia invaded.
As steve is fond of saying, didn’t the Ukrainians have any agency? We’re treating them as though they didn’t.