I have seen quite a few contrasting if not conflicting opinions on Ukraine today. It reminds me of the opening of A Tale of Two Cities:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way–in short, the period was so far like the present period that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Complaining about diffident Western support by Jamie Dettmer at Politico:
Western powers have failed Ukraine by dithering and delaying when it comes to supplying munitions and weapons systems, offering them on a just-in-time basis at best or way behind schedule at worst. And they’ve held back on state-of-the-art longer-range munitions and fighter jets that could have made a crucial difference to the counteroffensive.
Declaiming that we owe Ukraine nothing by Francis Sempa at RealClearDefense:
We can admire the courage of Ukrainians fighting for the independence of their country, but we owe them nothing.
or arguing that the most benign strategy for Ukraine is “Finlandization”, as I did twenty years ago, by Christopher Fettweis at Responsible Statecraft:
NATO expansion was a necessary condition for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It was not sufficient, since Putin has agency and made a catastrophically bad choice, but it was necessary. Those in the West who blame the United States for the war are as myopic as those who claim that Western policies had nothing to do with it. Putin remains a cold warrior at heart, and talked about NATO obsessively in the years leading up to the invasion.
Expanding NATO further would again provide the necessary conditions for tension and conflict. Russia will not stand by while Ukraine joins the enemy camp. A second invasion – perhaps before Ukraine formally joined the alliance, or perhaps afterwards – would be extremely likely. Those who suggest that deterrence would keep the Russians in check should listen to the rambling interview Putin just gave to Tucker Carlson. Ukraine simply matters more to the Russians than it does to us. Putin would calculate that no American president would be willing to sacrifice New York for Kyiv.
Another solution exists, one that might well assure Kyiv’s security without exacerbating Russian paranoia. Ukraine should be “Finlandized.”
During the Cold War, Finland was essentially a neutral country. It took no official positions on the pressing issues of the day, and was careful not to criticize the Soviet Union. Leaders in Helsinki made it clear to those in Moscow that they had no desire to join the West. They resisted pressure to join both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and discouraged their citizens from openly criticizing either side. Finland avoided the Soviet embrace by making it clear that it would avoid the West as well.
I am materially in agreement with the first two sentences of the quoted passage of Mr. Fettweis’s piece.
Complaining that we aren’t supplying the Ukrainians fast enough is facile. We aren’t able to supply the Ukrainians fast enough. We stopped being able to supply the Ukrainians fast enough when we started deindustrializing the United States which I would put more than 50 years ago. I’ll write a post on that subject at a later time.
Here’s my question. In 1942 would anyone have argued seriously that if we just supplied the Filipinos fast enough Philippines could prevail against the Japanese? That’s what we’re talking about in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Ukraine was not self-sufficient in 2014. Russia, very nearly an autarky, remains largely self-sufficient. That along with a couple of other factors are the reason that the sanctions we’ve imposed on Russia have failed.
We will not go to war directly with Russia over Ukraine. As long as that remains the case Ukraine cannot prevail. If we do go to war directly with Russia, the conflict is likely to go nuclear very quickly. How does that help Ukraine?
Ukraine was years away from joining NATO, maybe never. I still think the larger factor was Ukraine seeking financial independence from Russia. It was actively seeking more financial participation with the EU which Russia first tried to stop with having Yanukovych vetoing it and when that failed then he invaded. While there is no doubt some truth to the NATO idea it has been bandied about for quite a while. Putin actually acted when there was an economic threat. Of course he cant talk about that and admit that the other countries that left his sphere and doing better so he talks about NATO, empires and his version of history.
Steve
“If we do go to war directly with Russia, the conflict is likely to go nuclear very quickly. How does that help Ukraine?”
I presume there is a scenario where Russia aims all its nukes at NATO countries, and ignores Ukraine, while NATO aims its nukes at Russia (and ignores occupied Ukraine).
Ukraine would be the only country in Europe and North America that isn’t reverted back to the stone age.
What was the catastrophic NATO mistake? Asking. Not challenging.
And so now. Why support Ukraine instead of brokering a settlement? It’s not like this is a day at Disneyland for Russia.
So many opinions here. Some seem awfully partisan driven.
Further. I simply don’t buy the “Poland is next” argument. Putin can’t defeat Ukraine. Invade Poland? Only if he believes America is Biden/Obama.
The Russians are the good guys. The US/NATO are the bad guys. The good guys are winning. Thank God.
In a year or so, Russia will impose a settlement that partitions Ukraine, and there will be peace in Europe. The alternative is nuclear war to the death of us all.
I disagree with that observation. There are no “good guys” in this conflict. There are only “bad guys”.
However, I agree with your remarks on the outcome in that I think that is what will happen (not that I think that it is the best outcome). Note that is in stark contradiction to the narrative that the Russians are out to conquer and absorb Ukraine and that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are next.
“stark contradiction to the narrative that the Russians are out to conquer and absorb Ukraine and that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are next.”
They would absorb all fo Ukraine if they could. Remember that their initial plan was to drive straight to Kyiv and take it over removing the existing govt. Fully expect them to start efforts to institute a “civil war” in the Baltics.
Steve
“Why support Ukraine instead of brokering a settlement?”
On a practical level. A couple of reasons
1. There is pretty good evidence Ukraine was given a much more favorable settlement by the Russians in the first two months of the war (“the Istanbul talks”) then could be presently obtained. They likely could have gotten back to the 2014-2022 borders in return for neutrality. And its been fingered by Israeli PM Bannet, the WSJ that it was Zelensky and either PM Johnson or Biden who killed the deal.
Zelensky will be a dead man walking if the war ends with Ukraine is a worse position then what the Russians offered and essentially gotten 100,000 of men killed for less then nothing.
Biden too would be lumped with Presidents Johnson, Bush who made massive blunders in matters of war and peace. My guess is Biden would rather be declared senile before going to the negotiating table now.
So personal reasons of the main actors.
2. The current terms of settlement would be ugly for Ukraine / NATO. Russia has the initiative and with how the war is developing, I think they smell blood. I’ll put it out there, to get back to stalemate (and then negotiate for stalemate); NATO or Europeans troops could be necessary or NATO has to do wartime economic mobilization. Look at the trial balloon Macron floated this weekend (troops to Ukraine).
Please provide evidence. At the end of World War II the U. S. military advanced on Berlin but we didn’t absorb Germany into the United States. A capitol city is a military objective to interrupt command and control. That the Russians wanted to take Kiev means that they wanted the war to end quickly (and cheaply) rather than they wanted to annex all of Ukraine.
Nothing prevents Macron from sending French troops to Ukraine. Other than that he’d lose his job if he did so, of course. The same is true of Poland and Slovakia. Lately the leaders of both France and Slovakia have talked about NATO sending troops. NATO has no troops but they are not sending their own troops. What I believe they mean is that they want the U. S. to send troops to Ukraine while they continue business as usual.
I spent much of the weekend catching up on Ukraine and am not much more pessimistic about Ukraine’s position than I was when I wrote my comment last week.
2024 was always going to be a difficult year, but the next few months could be very bad if Ukraine doesn’t get resupplied with ammunition and weapons.
” Why support Ukraine instead of brokering a settlement? It’s not like this is a day at Disneyland for Russia. ”
To add to what Curious said,
This presumes Russia is interested in a settlement and also presumes there is some agreement both would accept. It’s become like Israel-Palestine where each side still has maximalist objectives. Unlike Curious, I don’t blame the rejection of the Instanbul Talks at the beginning of the war – caving to a Russian invasion would have been disastrous politically and would have encouraged Putin to do more of the same. It’s only in hindsight that seems like it might have been a better option.
Currently, the best that might be hoped for is some kind of ceasefire or armistice, but the problem is that Russia now has the advantage, and they have little incentive to give up that advantage with a negotiated settlement when they think they can get what they want on the battlefield, especially when it appears that the US may abandon Ukraine. Parts of the GoP and Trump’s base are openly pro-Russia at this point, so that is another reason – wait and see if Trump wins the election.
I’ve come to believe that keeping Russia in the Ukraine for as long as possible is our best chance of avoiding a NATO/ Russia conflict. Perhaps over Poland.
A direct NATO/Russia conflict would quickly go nuclear and every year that the West can drag this out makes Putin and his shrinking number of intimate allies grow older, improving our chances of a regime change in Russia, avoiding the worst outcome.
“I spent much of the weekend catching up on Ukraine and am not much more pessimistic about Ukraine’s position than I was when I wrote my comment last week. ”
Ugh, fat fingers – I meant I am much more pessimistic…
The only thing that would make me more pessimistic is if the Ukrainians start claiming that they have taken a dozen military KIAs rather than the 30,000 they are acknowledging.