The RAND organization has convened a panel of 27 experts who weighed in on the war in Ukraine and provided some guidance on what to look for in the coming year.
Their expertise is various: history, economics, international relations, Russia, public policy, and so on. Most of their remarks are pretty noncommittal which I suspect is part of what makes them experts. I agreed with many of them but disagreed with some. For example, I think this is a pretty succinct encapsulation of the situation by defense analyst Clint Reach:
In a protracted fight, time tends to favor the larger side. The question going forward for Ukraine will be the extent to which its superior will to fight and Western support and can overcome the numbers challenge.
but I disagree with this observation by David Shlapak:
Continued U.S. support for Ukraine will be more contentious with a new Congress. Since Europe will only follow where the United States goes, Washington may be where the outcome largely is decided.
or, at least, I would phrase it differently. A major question is whether our notional European allies are actually committed to opposing Russia in this war. Germany, for example, has been rhetorically strong but pragmatically weak. At this point it looks unlikely to increase its own defenses to any material degree. I don’t think U. S. leadership is at issue so much as European followership. If, as we stand up, Germany, France, and Italy stand down, we will weaken ourselves without increasing actual opposition to Russia. I thought the observation that by admitting Eastern European countries to NATO we simultaneously weakened the alliance and provided evidence to Russia that we were threatening them was insightful.
If, as we stand up, Germany, France, and Italy stand down, we will weaken ourselves without increasing actual opposition to Russia.
I thought that final paragraph of analysis was spot on. It coincides with an earlier post alleging our help has actually suffocated a robust response from the Europeans.
However, a question that has rarely been addressed is why is Biden so aggressively involving himself (and us) in this conflict? What is to be gained, and what is to lost by turning this into a WWIII slog? One opinion piece I recently read felt Biden’s enormous protective interest in Ukraine had more to do with a CYA reason than being heroic and showing strength towards Russia – especially since so little was done when Russia invaded Crimea without a whimper from the Obama/Biden Administration. When you factor in the Biden Family’s history of questionable monetary ties and pay-offs from Ukraine – implications of money laundering, bio weapon labs etc. – is Biden buying the Ukrainian silence by giving them massive, lop-sided supported?
The problem is not the Biden crime family and its shenanigans. It is the pathological Russian-hating neocons.
PS. Russia did not “invade” Crimea; they were there by treaty. The followup referendum was illegitimate, but Crimea is around 90% ethnic Russia, so the outcome was an accurate representation of the will of the people.
Anyway, Kosovo. Or the Republic of Texas vs. Mexico. Or better, the Confederate States of America.