Henry Kissinger has proposed some steps for preventing World War III in a piece at The Spectator. Here’s the kernel:
Ukraine has become a major state in Central Europe for the first time in modern history. Aided by its allies and inspired by its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine has stymied the Russian conventional forces which have been overhanging Europe since World War Two. And the international system — including China — is opposing Russia’s threat or use of its nuclear weapons.
This process has mooted the original issues regarding Ukraine’s membership in NATO. Ukraine has acquired one of the largest and most effective land armies in Europe, equipped by America and its allies. A peace process should link Ukraine to NATO, however expressed. The alternative of neutrality is no longer meaningful, especially after Finland and Sweden joined NATO. This is why, in May, I recommended establishing a ceasefire line along the borders existing where the war started on February 24. Russia would disgorge its conquests thence, but not the territory it occupied nearly a decade ago, including Crimea. That territory could be the subject of a negotiation after a ceasefire.
If the pre-war dividing line between Ukraine and Russia cannot be achieved by combat or by negotiation, recourse to the principle of self-determination could be explored. Internationally supervised referendums concerning self-determination could be applied to particularly divisive territories which have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries.
The goal of a peace process would be twofold: to confirm the freedom of Ukraine and to define a new international structure, especially for Central and Eastern Europe. Eventually Russia should find a place in such an order.
The preferred outcome for some is a Russia rendered impotent by the war. I disagree. For all its propensity to violence, Russia has made decisive contributions to the global equilibrium and to the balance of power for over half a millennium. Its historical role should not be degraded. Russia’s military setbacks have not eliminated its global nuclear reach, enabling it to threaten escalation in Ukraine. Even if this capability is diminished, the dissolution of Russia or destroying its ability for strategic policy could turn its territory encompassing eleven time zones into a contested vacuum. Its competing societies might decide to settle their disputes by violence. Other countries might seek to expand their claims by force. All these dangers would be compounded by the presence of thousands of nuclear weapons which make Russia one of the world’s two largest nuclear powers.
concluding:
The quest for peace and order has two components that are sometimes treated as contradictory: the pursuit of elements of security and the requirement for acts of reconciliation. If we cannot achieve both, we will not be able to reach either. The road of diplomacy may appear complicated and frustrating. But progress to it requires both the vision and the courage to undertake the journey.
At present the first aspect of his proposal (a Ukraine that is a member of NATO) is unacceptable to Russia and the second part (leaving Crimea in Russian hands) unacceptable to Ukraine. Sounds like an impasse to me.
One thing we should keep in mind. We can replace munitions expended by Ukraine in the conflict. We can give them more weapons. We can not replenish the Ukrainians lost and we have no idea how many of those there are. At least 15% of Ukraine’s population has already left the country. How many will wish to return?
The data from 20th century conflicts is on average 33% of refugees will return to their homeland once the conflict is over.
Demographics is tricky — Ukraine could simply open its doors to immigration — I assume grants of free fertile farmland will entice enough people to come.
I suspect the number who will return to Ukraine will be lower than that.
Giving away land may be tougher than it sounds. Ownership of arable Ukrainian land is a bit fuzzy. As much as 30% may be owned by foreigners.
Up to now, Russia has only committed about 150,000 troops to the war, and half those are Donbas militias and mercenaries. Russia has now mobilized some 500,000 to 600,000 ground troops, and it has committed to increasing its armed forces from about 1 million (present) to about 1.5 million (several years from now). Most of the increase would be in ground forces.
So, the Russo-Ukrainian war is far from over, and Russia appears to be getting ready for a large-scale war against NATO and, especially, the US. Such a war would almost certainly go nuclear. Our Rulers have read their Herman Kahn, and they believe a nuclear war is winnable. And they have access to the good shelters.
The American Deep State has been driving this war since the git-go with the coup in 2014. They have blocked every attempt to settle the issues, e.g., Minsk I and II and last Spring’s cease fire agreement. (That’s why Bojo went to Kiev.) Their goal is to overthrow the Russian government and to partition Russia into a number of manageable statelets.
Our Rulers actually believe, contrary to all the evidence, that Russia is economically weak, with little industrial capacity, that the Russian army is badly equipped, untrained, badly lead, corrupt, and disloyal, and that the Russian people are about to rise up against Putin, who is dying from cancer anyway.
Considering all that, a major escalation of the war is inevitable. All the switches have been thrown, and the train has left the station.
“We can replace munitions expended by Ukraine in the conflict. We can give them more weapons.”
Not at the rates Ukraine is using munitions and weapons. We will have to significantly increase our munitions production to meet the demand, which takes a lot of time and expense.
It bears repeating that no one expected or has the capability to fully support the weapons and munitions requirements for a war at this scale for any significant length of time.