Last week I lamented that no one had produced a plan that would allow Ukraine to prevail in its war against Russia. Yesterday seven “experts” put forward their plans in a piece in the New York Times. The only expert calling for victory for Ukraine was a former Ukrainian foreign minister. Another of the experts, a Russian, placed the blame on the present situation on NATO. The consensus among those who were neither Russians nor Ukrainians was mildly supportive of the Trump Administration’s 28-point plan which others have condemned as being pro-Russian.
The closest thing to such a plan was produced by Bernard-Henri Lévy in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. After complaining about Ukraine’s allies:
The problem is the allies. For nearly four years and through four films, I have said this, repeated it, and shown it again and again: From day one, all of the allies have systematically been one step behind—they sent helmets when Javelin missile launchers were needed, Javelins when artillery was needed, howitzers when trench warfare was giving way to war in the sky, antiaircraft defenses when long-range Scalp or Storm Shadow missiles were required, tanks when planes were needed, planes after the enemy had adapted its air defenses. . . . Always the right weapon, always six months late.
He singles out France:
And there is the Nov. 17 agreement signed by France’s President Emmanuel Macron, providing for the delivery, within 10 years, of 100 Rafale aircraft, 600 long-range AASM bombs, and 8 SAMP/T batteries, similar to the American Patriot.
But alas, within 10 years. Why? The urgency is now.
He might consider the possibility that France is incapable of providing the promised support any faster than that.
Here’s his plan:
And the absolute priority is to respond to the request President Volodymyr Zelensky has been making since day one, to which we have all remained more or less deaf, and on which the outcome of the war depends: Close the sky; prevent Russian bombs, missiles, drones from targeting our civilians, pulverizing our cities, and destroying our infrastructure—and then we will win.
Doing this requires three crucial steps: First, for France to set an example by delivering enough Patriot-type batteries to protect all major cities urgently, not in dribs and drabs. Second, for the U.S. and other allies to assure that the weapons provided are allowed to strike deep into Russia. Third, to finish integrating Ukraine into the network of radars, sensors and satellites that allow NATO armies not only to jam the sky but to detect incoming missile salvos.
As it’s been explained to me what he’s proposing cannot be done without the direct participation of American soldiers which, remains, correctly, off the table. If that’s an incorrect understanding, I would have no problem with providing those capabilities to the Ukrainians (with appropriate oversight) for the reasons I have enunciated in the past.
Lately some have been making the analogy to Yugoslavia and I think that’s correct. Just as with the Yugoslavian civil war the Russo-Ukrainian War is taking place entirely within Europe. It is a European war. If providing the resources necessary for the Ukrainians to prevail requires the European countries to go on a wartime footing, so be it. That’s what they should do. Our role should be limited to providing support and deterring the Russians from attacking our NATO allies directly. Personally, I think the specter some have raised of Russian troops marching into Berlin, Paris, and Rome is laughable.
The distance between Moscow and Kiev is roughly the same as that between Chicago and Kansas City. For going on three years Russia has been stalled in a strictly regional conflict with a hugely smaller foe. Russia’s attack on Ukraine was wrong and unlawful but is hardly a global threat.
I believe that ending the war is the highest priority with preserving Ukraine’s dignity a much lower one. Like it or not Trump’s plan is realistic and a step towards that end. As the “experts” (other than the Ukrainians) in the NYT piece affirmed, a ceasefire is the immediate necessity to save Ukrainian lives.
It’s realistic in that it amounts to surrender by Ukraine so of course Russia will agree. The Ukrainians need to decide if it will really save lives and if it is worth the price. It was Crimea in 2014, now eastern Ukraine which will provide a good staging area for taking over more of Ukraine. (Note that it guarantees Russia land it does not already hold but would be useful for further invasions.) Since Ukraine would be disarmed and its military limited in size it would have limited ability to respond next time.
Will there be a next time? Ukraine provides zero threat to Russia as an invading force, yet Russia insists on limiting Ukrainian abilities. Kind of answers that. Russia can just claim they heard some guy who used to work as a janitor in a NATO office somewhere suggested Ukraine should join NATO so Russia needs to invade. Nevermind that Nato has never moved enough forces anywhere near enough Russia to invade and as you keep pointing out, NATO has never built up the military stockpile or production ability to make the attempt.
Steve
I was unaware that George W. Bush had worked as a janitor in a NATO office. Good to know.
He did, however, propose a path to NATO membership for Ukraine in April 2008.
I’m still waiting for your plan for victory for Ukraine, steve. As I’ve said many times my plan is that we continue to provide support for Ukraine and encourage a ceasefire to preserve Ukrainian lives. Ukraine should also join the EU. I’m skeptical that any plan along the lines that President Zelensky has maintained can be achieved.