In his Wall Street Journal column Walter Russell Mead outlines more scenarios for how the Russian invasion of Ukraine may end:
As the two sides stumble in search of a path to victory, the Biden administration has three ugly options from which to choose.
The first option, helping Ukraine win, is the most emotionally appealing and would certainly be the most morally justifiable and politically beneficial, but the risks and costs are high. Russia won’t accept defeat before trying every tactic, however brutal, and perhaps every weapon, however murderous. To force Russia to accept failure in Ukraine, the Biden administration would likely have to shift to a wartime mentality, perhaps including the kind of nuclear brinkmanship not seen since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. With China and Iran both committed to weakening American power by any available means, a confrontation with the revisionist powers spearheaded by Russia may prove to be the most arduous challenge faced by an American administration since the height of the Cold War.
But the other two options are also bad. A Russian victory would inflict a massive blow to American prestige and the health of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, especially if the West were seen as forcing Ukraine to surrender to Russian demands. Freezing the conflict is also perilous, as this would presumably leave Russia holding even more Ukrainian territory than it did following the 2014 invasions of Crimea and the Donbas. It would be hard to spin this as anything but a partial victory for Russia—and Mr. Putin would remain free to renew hostilities at a time of his choosing.
The failure to deter Mr. Putin’s attack on Ukraine is more than a failure of the Biden administration. Donald Trump, Barack Obama and George W. Bush must share the blame. This failure may prove to be even costlier than failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks, and President Biden’s place in history hangs on his ability to manage the consequences of this increasingly unspeakable and unpredictable war.
I would add, at the very least, Bill Clinton to that list. His presidency set the U. S. on its present course with respect to its Russia policy. I honestly don’t believe that things had to be this way. I genuinely believe we could have chosen to have the Russians inside pissing out rather than outside pissing in. That die was cast decades ago.
Of those scenarios I suspect that the third is the most likely. What concerns me is the prospect of the United States being reluctant to accept an outcome that is acceptable to both the Ukrainians and the Russians.
Did you see the article in the WSJ “Vladimir Putin’s 20-Year March to War in Ukraine — and How the West Mishandled it”.
Some of the anecdotes are funny if things hadn’t turned so tragic.
There is the Bush administration telling Moscow US funded NGO’s spending only $14 million on Ukraine’s 2004 election as a sign the US wasn’t committed to prying Ukraine from Russian influence or an eventual plan for regime change in Moscow. (Of course, after 2016, Democrats came to see the Russian point of view).
Or Bush asking Putin why he considered the breakup of the Soviet Union worse than WWII?
The part on the Bucharest declaration is really something.
But to be fair, how things were perceived 10/20/30 years were different; almost like a bygone age.
“failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks”
Now, there is a degree of delusion that is seldom equalled. Prevent, how? As usual, the CIA/FBI had no clue. Of course, if bin Laden (RIP?) is to be believed, the attack occurred because of endless US meddling in the Middle East. Does Meade believe we should never have intervened? That we have no interests there? Was Truman’s recognition of Israel the original sin? Or does Meade and his keepers think American power is so overwhelming that we can intervene anywhere with impunity? That appears to be the truth.
Meade is one of the spokesmen for the Ruling Class, so what he writes is what they are thinking. “perhaps including the kind of nuclear brinkmanship not seen since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962” is this a flier to test public opinion? Is a nuclear war threat really being considered inside Washington? In 1962, Khrushchev backed down, and Kennedy backed down; the Russian ships turned around; and the Jupiter missiles came home from Turkey and Italy. I don’t think our current leadership is anywhere near what the Kennedy administration was. We will have to rely on Putin to solve this problem.
We are very close to a general war that would span not only Ukraine but all of Europe and all of North America. Putin has promised that Russia will attack the homeland of any country that makes war on Russia.
The WSJ is one of the main propaganda outlets heavily promoting war with Russia. In fact, every single MSM organ, print, broadcast, cable, is promoting war. We have not seen this level of effort since the invasion of Iraq. The last poll I saw had over 40% of Americans supporting military intervention in Ukraine.
The obvious false flag in Bucha may well be the turning point towards total war.
More specifically he said that the attack occurred because of U. S. troops in Saudi Arabia. That highlights a point I have made repeatedly. One step leads inevitably to another. The fallout from Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was our stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. That led to attacks on the World Trade Center. That led to our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. And on and on. The only way to win is not to play.