It takes Tom MacTague a while to get around to his point in his piece at The Atlantic but he does eventually:
he question for western leaders is how to ensure Putin is defeated while nevertheless providing him with a route out of the crisis and avoiding any missteps that could lead to a wider conflagration. The path along the cliff edge is precarious.
According to diplomats and experts I spoke with, the way forward involves a number of elements. First, the West must ensure that however much support it gives to Kyiv, the conflict remains one between Ukraine and Russia. That way, peace negotiations remain between the two countries, and not Russia and the West more widely. Washington, Paris, London, and Berlin cannot allow talks to become what Putin wants them to be: a negotiation about spheres of influence in which Ukraine and other states can be bargained away. This, in effect, would be a victory for Putin and his tactics of nuclear brinkmanship, leading to a more dangerous world in which other dictators take the lesson that bullying and intimidation work.
Second, the West must not close off potential compromises that the Ukrainians themselves would be willing to negotiate. If Putin is to accept a negotiated defeat, he will require a fig leaf to hide the reality that he has failed to subdue Ukraine. There has been speculation, for example, that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky might be prepared to formally renounce his pursuit of NATO membership, one of a number of pledges that could be made to serve as a pretext for Russian de-escalation. Zelensky could also promise not to send troops into the Donbas, for example, or seek to retake Crimea—or even to seek nuclear weapons, or allow them to be stationed on Ukrainian territory. In other words, he could use Russia’s absurd propaganda to his advantage by formally pledging not to do things that he or any of his successors would have considered doing anyway.
The difficulty comes with compromises that are not fair. Why should Ukraine not seek EU or NATO membership? Or why should it accept the annexation of Crimea, a part of its sovereign territory? Here diplomatic skills must come to the fore.
Ultimately, diplomacy will have to get each side to agree to a deal that allows each to save its dignity—even though one side does not deserve to have its dignity saved.
The Cuban missile crisis ended with Russian missiles turning back while the Americans agreed not to invade Cuba, and to remove their missiles from Turkey. Historians disagree over whether this maintained the status quo in terms of the overall balance of power between the two sides, or left Russia slightly better off than when the crisis began. Either way, it ended without catastrophic miscalculation and with a compromise balanced enough that both sides were able to save face.
My concern is that the volume of propaganda from both sides is so enormous as to convince each of the participants that their position is stronger than it actually is. Russian negotiators not to mention President Putin may think that their position is much stronger than it is and Ukraine’s weaker. Ukrainian negotiators may think that their position is stronger than it actually is and Russia’s weaker. NATO negotiators may think their position and above all their unity may be greater than it actually is, the Ukrainians stronger than they actually are, and the Russians weaker than they actually are. We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this is Russia and Ukraine’s war.
I think the greatest risk is almost the opposite of this:
Washington, Paris, London, and Berlin cannot allow talks to become what Putin wants them to be: a negotiation about spheres of influence in which Ukraine and other states can be bargained away.
Negotiations may become about what NATO countries want and are willing to accept rather than what Ukraine wants and is willing to accept.
While MacTague is correct that the conflict is btw/ Ukraine and Russia and therefore any peace agreement must be btw/ them, he seems to operate from the assumption that this framing is simply a posture that works to the West’s advantage. I think that reasoning is false. It is Ukraine’s war, which other countries support or not, but other countries are not under invasion and having their people killed. Finland findlandized itself.
Observations
(1) Does Ukrainian politics allow for some of these compromises? Joining NATO is in the constitution, can a treaty override the constitution, would there be sufficient support for such a measure? Ditto with EU membership. Is there sufficient support for giving up Crimea and Donbas (which they have been trying to reclaim since 2014)?
(2) I think any Ukraine Russia agreement without a wider NATO / US / Russia agreement raises the risk of a subsequent war (over some issue like Georgia, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Belarus). At this point — there is only 1 strategic arms treaty, no economic agreements (MFN clauses etc).
Let me put it another way: does the U. S. hate Russia more than it wants to save Ukrainians?
“I think any Ukraine Russia agreement without a wider NATO / US / Russia agreement raises the risk of a subsequent war ”
There is a reason Ukraine keeps asking to join NATO as did the Baltics and other former SSR’s. They know they are subject to invasion upon whim by Russia absent that protection. I dont see Russia making that concession. Any “agreement” would have to say we arent involved militarily or economically with Ukraine, we being the US and Europe. Ukraine needs to decide if they want to be a permanent vassal state or risk more deaths.
Steve
Tom MacTague is delusional and ignorant like every single other member of our Ruling Class. They, themselves, caused this war by their reckless, aggressive expansion of NATO and by their arrogant refusal to even discuss Russia’s security concerns. The war was easily predictable and easily avoidable.
As to who is in the saddle, Russia essentially controls all of Ukraine east of a line running from Kiev to Odessa. In that zone, the Ukrainian army is bottled up in several “cauldrons” and is being systematically destroyed. Ukraine has no air force and no systematic air defense system. Its coastline is either occupied by Russia or blockaded by the Russian navy. Recently, Russia’s missile attacks have extended to the Polish border.
Our elites firmly believe that the Russian economy is the size of Spain’s and consists of nothing but oil and gas exports. They really, truly believe that. But Russia’s economy is at least 20% bigger than Germany’s (PPP), and considering everything Russia does that Germany cannot do, it is likely at least twice as big, some 50% of the size of the US economy. And Russia’s manufacturing sector is much more diverse and comprehensive than either ours or Germany’s.
The belief in fundamental Russian weakness, an article of faith to our leaders, is the main reason for their reckless foreign policies. And their recklessness may get us all killed.
Right now the best we can hope for is a new Cold War, with two hostile blocks squaring off: the US and Europe vs. Russia and China. Africa, the Middle East, almost all of Asia, and Latin America will not join in. Mexico, Hungary, Turkey, China, India have already rejected sanctions against Russia.
Here is my attempt to draft an acceptable outcome of the negotiations.
Between Russia and Ukraine.
1) Ukraine to not join NATO or the EU
2) Ukraine’s military will have limited cooperation with NATO. In particular, no arms purchases or deliveries from any NATO member
3) Russia to withdraw all forces to the line of conflict before Feb 2022
4) A binding referendum will be held in Crimea (to join the Russian Federation or rejoin Ukraine), Ukraine held Donbass (to remain in Ukraine or join the self-declared republics), DPR & LPR (to rejoin Ukraine or become independent republics)
5) 99-year deal of water to Crimea in-exchange for discounted gas to Ukraine
6) Russian to be 2nd state language of Ukraine.
Between NATO & Russia
1) Limits on the land based force of the 3 declared nuclear powers in NATO (US, UK, France) in the former Warsaw Pact countries in exchange for limits on number of Russian forces in Belarus.
2) NATO’s abandonment of the “open door” with respect to ex-Soviet Republics not in NATO in return for Russian respect for Ukrainian independence and non-interference in domestic politics.
Reconstruction
1) The lifting of sanctions by EU/US and countersanctions / export bans by Russia on the completion of simultaneous trade deals between Ukraine and Eurasia Economic Union and Ukraine and the EU.
2) A reconstruction fund for Ukraine will be jointly funded by US, EU, Russia and (China??).
It may seem unfairly generous to Russia. I think many of its points acknowledge realities on the ground before the war started. Also, its not in the American interest to go eyeball to eyeball with Russia from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea. The Russians also need to have carrots to maintain the European security architecture vs trying to burn it down.
ALL of those could have been achieved without Russia invading and bombing Ukraine to do it. I think that would be construed in the West a “caving in to a dictator”, appeasement, etc.
Let me put it this way. If the objectives are regime change in Kyiv and Washington, that’s a good way to do it.
I perceive US bottom lines differently than DC.
My perception is US bottom lines must be economic strength. From that flows domestic stability and military strength, which gives this country strength in foreign relations.
I don’t see how this country can build economic strength when in a period of historic debt and historic inflation; high civil discord; a depleted industrial base; it increases spending significant on the military (potentially $500 billion a year) on a border from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea. And that’s likely what’s required if this country doesn’t cut a deal.
So the solution is to cut a deal to minimize military expenditures in Europe while protecting core interests this country has had since 1945.
Then everything else flows from that.
I don’t think cutting a deal made sense in December (the ultimatum had too much of a “Munich” to it). But Kyiv and Washington should have cut a deal in 2015 – 2021 when their positions were stronger (low inflation, US fiscal situation wasn’t so bad, etc).
Agree completely. Unfortunately, the present administration does not apparently believe that or at least has a completely different view of how you build economic strength from mine. I don’t think it can be done while raising corporate taxes or even threatening to do so or ratcheting regulations up beyond their pragmatic worth.
There’s a middle ground between a completely planned economy and laissez-faire. We need to hit a workable place in that middle ground. The Republican ideal seems to be a bizarre sort of laissez-faire while the Democrats’ ideal is an equally bizarre sort of planned economy.
I don’t think we need fewer regulations or lower taxes. I think we need shrewder regulations and taxes.