The Common Thread

The common thread running through a number of the opinion pieces I’ve read today is optimism—either our historic optimism or its lack.

For example at Slate via MSN Fred Kaplan offers a very pessimistic view of the situation in Ukraine:

The war between Russia and Ukraine is swiftly evolving into a war between Russia and NATO. In one respect, this is good: It gives Ukraine a higher chance of repelling Moscow’s invasion and even winning. In another respect, it is risky: The wider the war spreads, and the more Russia seems to be losing, the more compelled Vladimir Putin may feel to lash out with extreme violence.

This shift in the West’s approach to the war was first signaled on Monday, when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said the U.S. goals in the war were not only to protect Ukraine as a democratic, sovereign country but also to “weaken” Russia as a military power. This has been obvious for some time, but even some U.S. officials were surprised to hear Austin express the fact so explicitly.

A few days later, Austin hosted a meeting of defense officials from 40 nations, as well as NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, at Ramstein air base, headquarters of NATO Air Command, in Germany, to coordinate military assistance to Ukraine. The meeting prompted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to complain, “NATO, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through a proxy and is arming that proxy. War means war.”

Why is this pessimistic? I think Mr. Kaplan is right. The wider the war spreads and the longer it persists, the greater is the likelihood of it expanding to involve NATO countries directly. And, as I have pointed out any number of times, every wargame of great power conflict has resulted in a nuclear exchange. I think we are far from prepared for such an eventuality.

Even if the worst fails to materialize, there are other discouraging aspects to it. The longer the war persists, the more Ukrainians will be killed. The longer the war persists, the more stressed the entire world economy. We will inevitably replace the munitions we are giving to the Ukrainians. In the present political and economic climate that will undoubtedly be done by “printing more money”. That will add to inflation. Additionally, as I have pointed out before, Ukraine is quite corrupt. Some of the munitions we’re giving are likely to be used against us at some point.

Update

At Foreign Policy Michael Hirsch sees things pessimistically as well:

George Beebe, a former chief of Russia analysis for the CIA, said that the Biden administration may be in danger of forgetting that the “the most important national interest that the United States has is avoiding a nuclear conflict with Russia.” He added that “the Russians have the ability to make sure everyone else loses if they lose too. And that may be where we’re heading. It’s a dangerous corner to turn.”

Perhaps the most worrisome turn of events is that there no longer appears to be any possibility of a negotiated way out of the war—despite Putin’s statement to visiting United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres that he still hopes for such a solution.

“It’s one thing to pursue a policy of weakening Putin, quite another to say it out loud. We have to find a way for Putin to achieve a political solution, so perhaps it is not wise to state this,” said one senior European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“It’s getting more dangerous,” said Charles Kupchan, a former senior U.S. official and now a scholar of international relations at Georgetown University. “We need to start moving beyond Javelins and anti-tank missiles and talk about a political endgame.” Or, as Beebe put it, “We need to find a way of somehow discreetly conveying to the Russians that we would be willing to ease sanctions in the context of an international settlement. The military aid to Ukraine could also be used as leverage.”

Yet any such negotiation looks less likely than ever. Both sides appear to be settling in for a long fight. After meeting with Putin and Lavrov on Tuesday, Guterres acknowledged that an imminent cease-fire was not in the cards and that the war “will not end with meetings.”