In his Washington Post column David Ignatius says there’s a lot to be encouraged about in the way the war in Ukraine is progressing:
Considering the failure of Russia’s conventional forces, there’s an obvious danger that Putin might turn to the domain in which Russia remains a superpower: nuclear weapons. But that would be even riskier for Russia than for the West. Any demonstration of Russia’s battlefield nuclear weapons would draw a devastating U.S. conventional military response — and probably cause the loss of China as an ally.
Meanwhile, for the United States and its NATO allies, these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians). The West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked. NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland. Germany has weaned itself from dependence on Russian energy and, in many ways, rediscovered its sense of values. NATO squabbles make headlines, but overall, this has been a triumphal summer for the alliance.
The phrase “other than for the Ukrainians” is a telling one. I have heard such wildly conflicting reports on what has happened in Ukraine that I have no idea how to assess that. For example, the estimates I have read of the number of people who have left Ukraine vary from 6 million to 30 million. The estimates of Ukrainian soldiers killed or wounded vary even more dramatically—anything from 20,000 to 700,000. What the actual figures are matter a lot.
I don’t see the solidarity that Mr. Ignatius does, either within NATO or in the world. Ten times as many people live in countries that aren’t aligned with the NATO view than in countries that do. Has the war isolated Russia or has it isolated the U. S.? And how do we know? I do think our European allies are united in not wanting to commit their own soldiers to the conflict but would be delighted if we did.
Based on recent reports it actually looks like Russia plans to foreclose Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea.
I would phrase it as 45 countries out of 195 have made material contributions to Ukraine. Of those who have not few actually support Russia. Even China and India mostly want the oil.
“A good place to start looking for who is fully behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is to examine who voted against a UN resolution on Feb. 23, 2023, calling for “ending the war in Ukraine and demanded Russia’s immediate withdrawal from the country, in line with the UN Charterâ€.
Only Russia, Belarus, Syria, North Korea, Mali, Nicaragua and Eritrea voted against the resolution.”
Other than that someone who has been reading you for years would find it hard to believe that Germany has committed as much support as it has and I think most of us, or at least many, though Sweden and Finland were solidly committed to staying out of NATO. Americans, living far away, can talk about how poorly Russia was treated and how it’s not so bad but its neighbors who know them best are demonstrating with their actions how they view Russia.
Steve
Hardly any country actually supports Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, at least not openly. On the other hand no country outside the US/NATO/EU bloc supports the sanctions against Russia, and inside the bloc some oppose them, Turkey and Hungary, e. g.
Another way to look at is some 40 countries have expressed an interest in joining BRICS and/or SCO. So the Russian-Chinese bloc is rapidly gaining friends.
I would remind you that all of the MSM, Ignatius, are functionally illiterate ideologues. Their so-called analyses are risible.
I don’t know how to square this with the WSJ proclaiming “When Ukraine launched a counteroffensive in the spring of this year, the Western military knew that Kyiv did not have enough training and weapons – from shells to combat aircraft – to dislodge Russian troops. However, they hoped that Ukrainian courage and ingenuity would win. They haven’t.”
Its low cost, but we have to spend a lot more. I’m not sure the implications of “did not have enough training and weapons” goes through. If a few months of training is not enough, there is only one source of personnel with many months and years of training, and that isn’t Ukrainians.
Actually, there is a way to square the two articles together. NATO has signed on the equivalent of a teaser rate mortgage. Initially the costs seem remarkably low but when the “reset” comes and the real ongoing cost must be paid — it won’t be pretty.
“Won’t be pretty “
Isn’t pretty now but as it becomes more obvious, based on modern history, I bet Americans bailout.
“ I bet Americans bailout.â€
Does history show this country can easily or quickly bailout out of conflicts?
The US bailed out of Afghanistan after 20 years; it also bailed out of Iraq only to go back 5 years later. We bailed out of Libya but US achievements isn’t worthy of boasting.