The value I get from this commentary isn't only measured in better understanding - it's personal. My LinkedIn feed and most of the popular media I scan through is awash with propaganda. But I remember the manipulation of public opinion (including mine) for the invasion of Iraq. Very few people now remember how they felt about that. This is one of a handful of places which have kept me out of the emotional trap of pro war sentiment this time. That's why I support SF's writing.
One paradoxical outcome of the first two weeks of this war, it seems to me, is that Putin now has an objective (if not subjective) interest in Zelenskyy's safety. Zelenskyy now has far more moral authority to make difficult compromises as part of an agreement than any likely immediate replacement. Let alone one put in place by Russia.
An unfortunate barrier to a negotiated peace is the intense war propaganda in the West. The American media has willingly become a tool for Ukrainian propaganda. Because Ukrainian successes and Russian failures attract audiences. American politicians race to see who can be tougher on Russia, which creates conditions that make it very difficult for America to push for any peace deal that Ukraine might reject. All Zelensky has to do is utter the word "appeasement" and any peace deal will die.
America is at war with Russia. We are using every tool except our troops. But we are still at war. I do not know what our war aims are. I do not think we know what our war aims are.
To me what would be reasonable is an independent Ukraine with a moratorium on joining NATO and the EU. A rollback on the sanctions in return for minimal Russian territorial gains, e.g., Crimea and a negotiated line in the eastern provinces. The right peace deal, whatever the details, will be something that no one particularly likes.
Are we as a country mature enough to accept that some times the "bad guys" get away with something in return for all the benefits of peace?
An interesting article but it all comes down to the question of how Putin sees things. I can't see him giving up hope for a maximum victory and my feeling is that his ego and probable lack of advisors/new givers prepared to report unpalatable things is going to mean things are going to have to get to really bad for a really long time for Russia before he makes compromises. Up to now I would think he would only offer cease fire because he likes the idea of some time to re-supply, rest up and rotate his troops. Of course the sanctions will continue to inflict damage but my guess is he's confident he can keep his population in the dark or at least cowered indefinitely.
Two weeks of war in Ukraine allow us to vindicate the NATO planning and procurement processes from the 1970s/80s. Faced with potentially-overwhelming Soviet armoured strength, NATO aimed to give the infantry sufficient ATGM to at least slow down their advance until. FOFA could take effect. That seems entirely vindicated in Ukraine today, although I doubt any of us expected Russia to be using T-72 derivatives as late as 2022.
The option that you don't mention is that Putin's clan, and currently allied clans, decide they have a further option to maintain their wealth and power and that is to say that it isn't Russia's fault but Putin's...and replace him. They can then cease military confrontation and get back to making money.
Yes, Zelensky is offering some compromise, but Putin will not accept it. He is all in and can't admit even the semblance of stalemate or defeat.
The US & NATO should have and still can tell Putin that everything would be negotiable--under UN auspices in Geneva--including Ukraine staying out of NATO, territorial concessions & relief from the sanctions--IF there is an immediate ceasefire & cessation of the Russian attacks.
If Putin will not agree to that--and no one expects that he will--then the transference of more weapons to Ukraine should proceed--including the MiGs that Poland wanted to send them. It makes no sense to withhold the MiGs out of fear of 'escalation' but think sending Stingers & Javelins to Ukraine to take out Russian tanks and kill Russians from the ground is fine. What matters is not the weapons themselves but that it is Ukrainians wielding them and flying the MiGs fighting for their own country, not US or NATO pilots.
Waiting around for Putin's forces to reduce Kyiv to rubble, kill Zelensky and tens of thousands more Ukrainians, while producing several million more desperate refugees fleeing to Europe is not a strategy. But that is where we are headed given Putin's brutality and the US administration's fecklessness, weakness and stupidity, which led to this in the first place.
The killing and destruction will stop only when Putin's war machine is no longer capable of killing and destruction. Sanctions will not do this. Only giving the Ukrainians what they need to do it will end this.
How does Russia's military failure in north Ukraine vs relative success in the south feed into these calculations? Is a strip from DNR round to Odessa likely to be viewed by Putin as sufficient to save face and present this to Russia as a success justifying the entire operation? Does it then embolden Russia to try again in a few years, gradually nibbling away at the Ukrainian state piece by piece (almost certainly how Ukraine would view such an outcome)? Alternatively, does the failure in north Ukraine lead Putin to conclude more military effort is needed to achieve the original objectives, despite sanctions crippling the Russian economy?
It's also unclear what happens to the Russian forces in north Ukraine. If they're clearly beaten and have to straggle back minus much of their equipment, for how long can Putin disguise this, and wat will be the wider impact on the Russian armed forces? Are there historical parallels with Adwa in 1896 (post-defeat) and the German transfer of troops to the west in 1918 (pre-defeat)?
The extraordinary thing about this war is how much it is costing Russia for so little apparent gain. Russia is a huge country and stands to benefit very little by winning a few more square miles.
Is the continuation of the war simply a product of Putin's personality? As long as it persists he can threaten the west with a reality as predicted in Russian fairy tales. With his conventional military shown to be largely ineffective he can still talk up his nuclear weapons at every opportunity.
Putin enjoys intimidating people, that is clear from the smirk on his face when he scares Angela Merkel with the dog.
And yet indulging this man's ego is costing his country plenty.
How does one man have this much power? In this day and age? Who is it that is scared of him in Russia? Who is backing him? It has to be an illusion. It is ONE man.
Putin is a murderer and war criminal, probably the worst in Europe since Hitler. How many thousands of innocent civilians has he killed.? How many towns and cities, homes, hospitals and businesses has he decimated? These were not collateral damage. They were all targets of his army of barbarians. He deserves to be tried and hanged if found guilty of exactly what he did.
The value I get from this commentary isn't only measured in better understanding - it's personal. My LinkedIn feed and most of the popular media I scan through is awash with propaganda. But I remember the manipulation of public opinion (including mine) for the invasion of Iraq. Very few people now remember how they felt about that. This is one of a handful of places which have kept me out of the emotional trap of pro war sentiment this time. That's why I support SF's writing.
One paradoxical outcome of the first two weeks of this war, it seems to me, is that Putin now has an objective (if not subjective) interest in Zelenskyy's safety. Zelenskyy now has far more moral authority to make difficult compromises as part of an agreement than any likely immediate replacement. Let alone one put in place by Russia.
An unfortunate barrier to a negotiated peace is the intense war propaganda in the West. The American media has willingly become a tool for Ukrainian propaganda. Because Ukrainian successes and Russian failures attract audiences. American politicians race to see who can be tougher on Russia, which creates conditions that make it very difficult for America to push for any peace deal that Ukraine might reject. All Zelensky has to do is utter the word "appeasement" and any peace deal will die.
America is at war with Russia. We are using every tool except our troops. But we are still at war. I do not know what our war aims are. I do not think we know what our war aims are.
To me what would be reasonable is an independent Ukraine with a moratorium on joining NATO and the EU. A rollback on the sanctions in return for minimal Russian territorial gains, e.g., Crimea and a negotiated line in the eastern provinces. The right peace deal, whatever the details, will be something that no one particularly likes.
Are we as a country mature enough to accept that some times the "bad guys" get away with something in return for all the benefits of peace?
nah let's just take out Putin 🤪
An interesting article but it all comes down to the question of how Putin sees things. I can't see him giving up hope for a maximum victory and my feeling is that his ego and probable lack of advisors/new givers prepared to report unpalatable things is going to mean things are going to have to get to really bad for a really long time for Russia before he makes compromises. Up to now I would think he would only offer cease fire because he likes the idea of some time to re-supply, rest up and rotate his troops. Of course the sanctions will continue to inflict damage but my guess is he's confident he can keep his population in the dark or at least cowered indefinitely.
Two weeks of war in Ukraine allow us to vindicate the NATO planning and procurement processes from the 1970s/80s. Faced with potentially-overwhelming Soviet armoured strength, NATO aimed to give the infantry sufficient ATGM to at least slow down their advance until. FOFA could take effect. That seems entirely vindicated in Ukraine today, although I doubt any of us expected Russia to be using T-72 derivatives as late as 2022.
Return of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
My observation is that many people feel that the only priority is to punish Russia no matter the devastation to Ukrainians.
The option that you don't mention is that Putin's clan, and currently allied clans, decide they have a further option to maintain their wealth and power and that is to say that it isn't Russia's fault but Putin's...and replace him. They can then cease military confrontation and get back to making money.
A lot of words with not much enlightenment.
Yes, Zelensky is offering some compromise, but Putin will not accept it. He is all in and can't admit even the semblance of stalemate or defeat.
The US & NATO should have and still can tell Putin that everything would be negotiable--under UN auspices in Geneva--including Ukraine staying out of NATO, territorial concessions & relief from the sanctions--IF there is an immediate ceasefire & cessation of the Russian attacks.
If Putin will not agree to that--and no one expects that he will--then the transference of more weapons to Ukraine should proceed--including the MiGs that Poland wanted to send them. It makes no sense to withhold the MiGs out of fear of 'escalation' but think sending Stingers & Javelins to Ukraine to take out Russian tanks and kill Russians from the ground is fine. What matters is not the weapons themselves but that it is Ukrainians wielding them and flying the MiGs fighting for their own country, not US or NATO pilots.
Waiting around for Putin's forces to reduce Kyiv to rubble, kill Zelensky and tens of thousands more Ukrainians, while producing several million more desperate refugees fleeing to Europe is not a strategy. But that is where we are headed given Putin's brutality and the US administration's fecklessness, weakness and stupidity, which led to this in the first place.
The killing and destruction will stop only when Putin's war machine is no longer capable of killing and destruction. Sanctions will not do this. Only giving the Ukrainians what they need to do it will end this.
Negotiate a peace ?
Not going to happen.
If someone kidnapped two of your seven children would you agree the kidnapper can keep them provided he promises not to kidnap more ?
How does Russia's military failure in north Ukraine vs relative success in the south feed into these calculations? Is a strip from DNR round to Odessa likely to be viewed by Putin as sufficient to save face and present this to Russia as a success justifying the entire operation? Does it then embolden Russia to try again in a few years, gradually nibbling away at the Ukrainian state piece by piece (almost certainly how Ukraine would view such an outcome)? Alternatively, does the failure in north Ukraine lead Putin to conclude more military effort is needed to achieve the original objectives, despite sanctions crippling the Russian economy?
It's also unclear what happens to the Russian forces in north Ukraine. If they're clearly beaten and have to straggle back minus much of their equipment, for how long can Putin disguise this, and wat will be the wider impact on the Russian armed forces? Are there historical parallels with Adwa in 1896 (post-defeat) and the German transfer of troops to the west in 1918 (pre-defeat)?
The extraordinary thing about this war is how much it is costing Russia for so little apparent gain. Russia is a huge country and stands to benefit very little by winning a few more square miles.
Is the continuation of the war simply a product of Putin's personality? As long as it persists he can threaten the west with a reality as predicted in Russian fairy tales. With his conventional military shown to be largely ineffective he can still talk up his nuclear weapons at every opportunity.
Putin enjoys intimidating people, that is clear from the smirk on his face when he scares Angela Merkel with the dog.
And yet indulging this man's ego is costing his country plenty.
How much more pain will Russia tolerate?
How does one man have this much power? In this day and age? Who is it that is scared of him in Russia? Who is backing him? It has to be an illusion. It is ONE man.
Peace always is better than war. I hope the two sides can find it soon.
Putin is a murderer and war criminal, probably the worst in Europe since Hitler. How many thousands of innocent civilians has he killed.? How many towns and cities, homes, hospitals and businesses has he decimated? These were not collateral damage. They were all targets of his army of barbarians. He deserves to be tried and hanged if found guilty of exactly what he did.