These three articles provide such contrasting views of events I thought I should link to all of them.
First, there’s Walter Russell Mead’s column in the Wall Street Journal. In his view Russia’s war in Ukraine provides the United States with an opportunity:
Helping Ukraine is not a charity project to be undertaken out of sentiment. Nor is it a strategic distraction that weakens our hand in the Indo-Pacific. In his blindness and folly, Vladimir Putin has handed the U.S. a golden opportunity. We should seize it with both hands.
Next up is Marwan Bishara’s take at Al Jazeera which, as you will note, is in sharp contrast with Dr. Mead’s:
As the war drags on with no end in sight, it is important to address US President Joe Biden’s – and his Western allies’ – miscalculations in Ukraine as well. These, unsurprisingly, mirror Russia’s own failures, as both leaders prove incapable of learning the lessons of imperial hubris.
From the start, Biden took the moral high ground, framing the conflict in Ukraine as a global one between democracy and autocracy, between respect for international law and national sovereignty and the scourge of Russian aggression. Yet, he pleaded with world autocrats to join the crusade and disregarded America’s own illegal wars.
He underestimated the power of Russian nationalism and rejected Moscow’s fears of NATO expansion towards its borders as baseless excuses for Russian imperialism.
In the months leading up to the war, Biden undermined efforts to implement the Minsk agreements signed in 2014 and 2015 to end the conflict in the Donbas region. They were meant to pave the way for the creation of two autonomous Russian areas in eastern Ukraine and stave off the expansion of Russian intervention in the country.
Both Ukraine and Russia had signed on, but France and Germany, which helped conclude and refine these agreements, failed to push hard enough for their implementation. Despite having much to lose from a devastating European war, European powers did little to stop the escalation.
Biden also underestimated Russia’s military endurance, betting on Ukrainians defeating it just as the Afghans defeated the Soviet Union with help from the United States.
But for Moscow, Ukraine is far more important and strategic than Afghanistan, considering its shared history and geographic proximity. From Putin’s perspective, Ukraine is vital for Russia’s national security and his regime’s survival. Clearly, he would rather have it destroyed than see it join a Western alliance.
Finally, there’s Daniel Davis’s piece at 19FortyFive:
Put simply, Ukraine doesn’t have the personnel or industrial capacity to replace their lost men and equipment in comparison to the Russians. Moreover, Russia has been learning from its many tactical mistakes and evidence suggests they are improving tactically while simultaneously expanding their industrial capacity. Even bigger than the dearth of ammunition and equipment for Ukraine, however, is the number of trained and experienced personnel they’ve lost. Many of those skilled troops and leaders simply cannot be replaced in the span of mere months.
Ukraine is now faced with a world-class dilemma: should they use their last offensive capacity in a last gasp of hoping they inflict a grave wound on the Russians defending in the occupied territories or preserve them in case Russia launches a summer offensive of their own? There are serious risks with either course of action. I assess there is currently no likely path for Ukraine to achieve a military victory. Continuing to fight in that hope may perversely result in them losing even more territory.
I have no idea of which of these views if any to believe. Ukraine cannot be an asset for the U. S. as Dr. Mead avers if it is defeated on the battlefield. Simple as that. Indeed, rather than being an asset Ukraine could become a permanent liability.
The reports of drone and missile attacks by Russia and Ukraine do little to clear things up.
I’m surprised at Mead’s impression of Ukraine as somehow being a “golden opportunity†for the U.S., vis-à -vis Putin. IMO, Al Jazeera is far and away more prescient and/or accurate in their portrayal of the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
Did Mr Mead his own article? Some of the specific facts are jarring compared to its intended message.
“Corruption remains widespread”; maybe it is me, but rare is the government that wins a war while it is mired in corruption. Corruption is the greatest barrier to a strong Ukrainian state which is the prerequisite to its long term survival.
“My grandfather fought the Russians,†There is only one military force of “grandfathers” where Ukrainians were fighting the Russians (or the Soviets as known back then). I am not sure we want to drag up that past because it would discredit Ukraine’s current cause.
“Sometimes using off-the-shelf gadgets bought directly by front-line soldiers with money from family and friends”. That’s why Ukraine demands and US is giving Starlink, Ukraine Abrams, Patriots, and F16’s, correct?
I do agree the Ukraine crisis is an opportunity (as in the worn cliche that the Chinese character for crisis contains “opportunity”). But opportunity for who? I think it is China, India, Iran, Arabs, and Turkey who are seizing the opportunities.
I don’t know if there’s any truth in the claims but the Russian MOD says they’re destroying warehouses full of Western munitions in Ukraine pretty rapidly.
That highlights a point I don’t know I’ve ever seen anyone make. We’re having difficulty in supplying the Ukrainians quickly enough already. It won’t help if what we furnish them with is destroyed.
I’d sure like to know about it if some families are sending F16s to Ukraine.
Meade has long been a shill for The War Party in Washington, and he tells us what they want us to believe.
The WSJ, like the NYT and WaPo, is not a reliable source on any topic. All their articles are agenda driven. Antiestablishment blogs like Moon of Alabama (German) or Son of the Second American Revolution (ex CIA) are probably more reliable.
Russia is slowly grinding Ukraine down, and eventually Russia will impose the terms for peace. Their stated goals have not changed: no NATO membership for Ukraine; removal of all nazi elements; disarmament.
The pace and tactics of this war suggest that under modern surveillance and long range guided weapons combined arms warfare may no longer be possible.
Not going to read all these but Bishara seems to be saying this could have all been avoided if Russia was just given eastern Ukraine. Hard to beat that logic. Really, just give them all of Ukraine and there definitely won’t be anymore wars with Ukraine.
Steve
There are points of agreement and disagreement with each piece.
First, Mead is right on a couple of points, but for the wrong reasons, but what is good or bad depends on your goals. If the goal is the defenestration of Russia, then the war is good. If the goals is a stronger strategic position for the United States, then that is far from certain.
But this:
“The country [Ukraine] emerging from Putin’s War will be a formidable new force in Europe whose interests and outlook place it firmly in alignment with the U.S.” is borderline laughable in similar ways to the claims that an Iraq free of Saddam would be a beacon of prosperity and democracy.
The Al Jazeera correctly notes one of the underappreciated factors that many who know little of the region heap scorn on – namely, the bad assumptions of US policy over the last couple of decades – notably the failure to appreciate the importance of Ukraine to Russia, which ironically, was well described by Jake Sullivan back when he was at the CIA. The national security establishment did not understand this (or refused to understand it) and assumed that the expansion of Western influence and alliances to Ukraine and other strategically important countries would be met with the Russians rolling over, as they consistently did for the previous three decades.
I think the last piece is the most accurate and relevant, at least for the near term. The military capabilities of the two combatants are such that neither can win – meaning, neither can reach their stated war goals. These kinds of wars are ruinous and all consuming of money, people, and weaponry. It’s so obviously true that Western governments cannot supply Ukraine with all it’s needs – anyone suggesting otherwise at this point is delusional. By the same token, Russia is in a similar position, especially when it comes to manpower and key weapons. Their offensive over the winter drained their offensive capabilities for very little.
Over the long term, what happens depends on your assumptions.
– If Western governments pour hundreds of billions into increasing war production to support Ukraine and continue to entirely fund Ukraine’s government and a significant portion of its GDP, while, at the same time, sanctions and internal conditions prevent Russia from increasing arms production and mobilizing manpower, then Ukraine could have a decisive advantage.
– If, on the other hand, Western support ends and or is significantly reduced, and China comes to Russia’s aid, then Russia could have a decisive advantage.
– In most other circumstances, the present conditions of attrition consuming men, money, and material will continue until exhaustion forces a ceasefire or white peace followed by a continuation war.
Sadly, I think option 3 is by far the most likely.
Such is the extent of material needs and usage that private supplies of key pieces of equipment are a very important component for both sides, not just the Ukrainians.
And that ties in with the reason that Ukraine is asking for all these advanced weapons systems – because the systems it had at the start of the war have been or are being attrited and cannot be replaced.
The fact is that no one expected or prepared for this kind of long, brutal, attritional war, which is why sustainment is such a crucial factor.
@Andy
Thanks. It is nice to get an adult’s perspective.