Stephen Bryen questions whether Henry Kissinger is right about the value of negotiations in the war in Ukraine at this point:
Henry Kissinger says that conditions are right for negotiations on Ukraine by the end of the year. He bases his calculation on the fact that China has emerged as a broker, which puts the Russians on the spot to a degree.
This is the portion of Mr. Bryen’s essay to which I wanted to draw attention:
Russia believes it is at war with NATO and the United States, and while the war is being fought in Ukraine, it is supported out of bases in Europe and it is part of a US/NATO plan, in the Russian view, of fracturing Russia, splitting it into bite sized pieces for NATO to dominate. Adding Finland and maybe Sweden to the Alliance also increases Russian doubts about NATO and the United States and the collective threat Russia faces on its own. Thus while Western pundits are worried about Ukraine’s future, Russia is concerned with its own survival.
It is worth recalling that before Russia invaded Ukraine, it sent two messages, one to the US President and the other to the head of NATO. One letter —that sent to the US— was focused on the Ukraine problem; the other letter, to NATO called for a new security regime for Eastern Europe. Both letters were ignored and treated in a disdainful, hostile manner by both the US and NATO.
Under the circumstances it’s hard for me to see any meaningful negotiations taking place over the war in Ukraine for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier this morning, unless we adjust our priorities, I don’t see how Ukraine can prevail.
Neither side has an incentive to negotiate except as a ploy to gain an advantage in the war. Therefore, there won’t be any meaningful negotiations. The ability of third parties to force negotiation is limited and won’t result in a lasting agreement.
If we take the Korean War as a template, negotiations will in earnest begin in 2025 (after 2024 Ukraine, Russia, US, UK elections); and any “long-term” cease wire would be agreed in mid 2025.
In other words, unless there’s a breakthrough (which can happen), we are still closer to the beginning of the war then the end of it.
“It is worth recalling that before Russia invaded Ukraine, it sent two messages, one to the US President and the other to the head of NATO. One letter —that sent to the US— was focused on the Ukraine problem; the other letter, to NATO called for a new security regime for Eastern Europe. Both letters were ignored and treated in a disdainful, hostile manner by both the US and NATO.”
I believe this was after Russia occupied Crimea and then started the long running conflict in Eastern Ukraine.
Steve
“I believe this was after Russia occupied Crimea and then started the long running conflict in Eastern Ukraine. ”
Yes. I don’t think Russia’s invasion can be morally justified at all. But it is important to understand why Russia ultimately made that choice and the history that led them there. The occupation of Crimea and the invasion are not isolated events, living separately in apothecary drawers.
The short version is that at the end of the Cold War, the West, and especially the US, never passed up an opportunity to shit on Russian strategic interests. Two decades of that culminated in Russia pushing back – hard – regarding the red line of Crimea and Ukraine.
Many of us saw this coming long ago, especially those who knew the region the best like Kennan and Biden’s current NSA, Jake Sullivan. Even Bill Clinton, who in Strobe Talbott’s memoir reported said to him in the mid-1990’s:
The war for Ukraine started in 2014, including the occupation and annexation of Crimea. But Russia and Putin didn’t wake up one day and decide to do it for shits and giggles.
History didn’t begin with 2014.
Putin already put on very clear notice Russia’s concerns about NATO’s posture in Eastern Europe in 2007 — the famous speech at Munich. 2007 was before 2008 when the US proposed Ukraine and Georgia join NATO, the subsequent Georgia / Russia conflict, or the events in Ukraine in 2014.
One article to note on the negotiations front is the WSJ article titled “US and allies look at potential China role in ending Ukraine War”. I puzzled over it, it wasn’t a propaganda article; the article didn’t state the implications if negotiations required China’s mediation in some form, which if thought through would advise US policymakers to avoid it if possible.