Another good article (no surprise). The surprising thing is everyone can see that Putin is not going to give up fighting this early but seems to think the Ukrainians can be persuaded to. It's dumb to even try - it'll just give the Ukrainians practice in not listening to you - hardly what 'realistic' diplomacy is supposed to be about.
I assume the Ukrainians are planning a 'long game'. They know they aren't going anywhere and have hopes Russia is made to bleed and suffer, on what is after all foreign soil, they may tire of it. Perhaps not in months but perhaps in years. The difference is that they have the tools and expertise to add to Russian attrition and misery with conventional forces rather than merely relying on an insurgency, which after all worked in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It also seems to me everyone over-estimates the impact of sanctions in the short term and under-estimate the their impact over the very long term. Occupying forces cost money and in the not too distant future Russia is going to be selling a lot less hydro-carbons - which was about all their economy was good at in the first place.
"it'll just give the Ukrainians practice in not listening to you"
Lovely phrase. There must be some consideration in diplomatic circles about what happens if the West does falter. Ukraine will not give up; nor will the Baltics, Poland, Finland, Sweden; Czechia and Slovakia think along similar lines, perhaps Romania and Bulgaria?
It seems their experience of the “Falin-Kwiciński” doctrine has progressed their strategic thinking well beyond those in western Europe. Their elimination of Russian gas from Poland, the Baltics and Finland (secured before the war, implemented after) demonstrates this.
It still seems extraordinary that western Europeans would consider the risk of Russia blackmailing them over gas supplies minimal when it was an avowed policy directed at eastern Europeans since the 1960s.
In the long run, Putin is dead, more Russian pipelines will link to Asia, Russia can buy all the tech it needs from China, and Americans might realize there is no more reason to care about Ukraine than Belarus or Moldova or Georgia.
Treeamigo, you're over-simplifying theses issues. Of course, gas pipe lines linking Russia to Asia are physically possible to build, but the economics have to stack up, and it's unclear that they will. Even if they do, these lines won't replace the massive revenue drop from losing Europe as a long term customer. First up Asian nations are mostly well supplied with energy already, so the high prices commanded in Europe will have to fall to be competitive. Again, Asian nations will note how Russia has repeatedly used gas as a geo-political weapon in Europe, and be wary of falling into the same trap. There might be some Asian demand for Russian gas, but it will be limited and at much lower price points than Europe was prepared to pay. Again, "tech" can be indeed be bought from China, but the Chinese are also sensitive to geo-political trends. To date the Chinese have been very reluctant to assist Russia beyond mere platitudes. It doesn't hurt them to see Russia weakened somewhat. Moreover, would China supply Russia with cutting edge tech, if they were threatened with sanctions and a loss of access to their enormous Western markets if they did? I very much doubt it. Finally, American are unlikely to lose interest in backing Ukraine. Finally after decades of internal squabbling over wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, they finally have a 'good' war that democrats and republicans can both get behind. They haven't had one since WW2. They have a perfect 'baddie' in Putin and his crazy propagandists, and a perfect hero in Zelenskyy and his soldier-citizens. Memes of the American War of Independence merge with memes from Starwars and Lord of the Rings. Frankly, the US is just LOVING this conflict, for a host of reasons. And when Putin eventually dies or is overthrown, all bets are off. Dictatorships are brittle. My guess is Russia will splinter. But perhaps I'm an optimist.
The facts are 1) that Russia currently controls and will control much of four oblasts and is taking steps to annex them formally, 2) that defense is easier than offense and Ukraine lacks the weaponry and manpower to launch sustained offensive operations against entrenched defensive positions 3) Neither the US or EU are going to give Ukraine the offensive weaponry (aircraft, cruise missiles (incl JASSM-type) required to retake Russian positions, which all border Russia and Crimea for resupply), and Russia has the means to punish Ukraine in Kiev and Odessa and Lviv for offensive operations in the East or South 4) Ukraine’s economy is a shambles, its ports are blockaded and Ukraine is almost entirely dependent on handouts from the West to continue its war effort, rebuild or even continue as an economic going concern. Agree that Ukraine will never accept annexation, but a ceasefire that delays the annexation process and opens the ports, returns Kherson and the north/west bank of the river in Kherson Oblast to Ukraine as well as any territory beyond Donetsk/Luhansk in the East (eg Kharkiv environs) might be doable and sensible by the end of summer. That outcome would be preferable to stalemate along Russia’s line of control and annexation behind it, which is the alternative.
As far as the history of partition (and/or population displacement) goes, surely you realize that the examples you cite (India/Pakistan and Israel) were merely the tail end of the post WWII process that saw borders redrawn or arbitrarily created in all of central and Eastern Europe (from Italy and Germany all the way to Ukraine, a good portion of which was Poland pre-war), all of the Middle East, much of Africa and a bit in Asia (Tibet, Singapore). It is a practice that goes back millennia.
"3) Neither the US or EU are going to give Ukraine the offensive weaponry (aircraft, cruise missiles (incl JASSM-type) required to retake Russian positions, which all border Russia and Crimea for resupply), and Russia has the means to punish Ukraine in Kiev and Odessa and Lviv for offensive operations in the East or South"
That is not a fact; it is a prediction about the future. It might very easily be wrong. So far the West has in three months gone from supplying only shoulder-fired missiles to supplying tanks, modern tube artillery and harpoon antiship missiles. In three months there might well be rocket artillery and SAMs, and perhaps more still three months after that.
"4) Ukraine’s economy is a shambles, its ports are blockaded and Ukraine is almost entirely dependent on handouts from the West to continue its war effort"
As long as the western countries are willing to pay that is no issue. Quite contrary, the Russian economy is under more stress than the western economies, the economic front is a Russian problem.
"2) that defense is easier than offense and Ukraine lacks the weaponry and manpower to launch sustained offensive operations against entrenched defensive positions"
That is in this general form a useless simplification. Russia has to defend a long front line with less infantry than the enemy has, an enemy that operates on the interior lines. We will most likely not see larger Ukranian offensive operations in the next two months, but next year the situation is much more unclear esp. when Russia does not mobilize.
"3) Neither the US or EU are going to give Ukraine the offensive weaponry (aircraft, cruise missiles (incl JASSM-type) required to retake Russian position"
You do not take positions with cruise missiles and you do not need them. Ukraine needs artillery, tanks and the ability to defend against larger Russian air strikes, here the western countries are delivering.
The very essence of a sober and therefore diifficult assessment. I for one am happy to leave the 'safe to assume' predictions to the many, confident journos and other 'experts'...
I feel so guilty for having children. Are they going to experience a world war, if not with Russia then with China later down the line? I have woken up fast. This world we are in now is not the one I thought we lived in and I feel in despair.
Russia has no ability to launch a world war. China has no desire to. Enjoy your children (if they are young) or encourage them to give you grandchildren (if they are older).
Who will win? Professor, the points you make can surely lead us to a wider political engagement answering the question - Who is already losing? Perhaps time to challenge the geopolitics of land, state and nation and look at what disappeared after a few years as the 'sexy' multilateral trend - Rights Based Programming? Naive? Yes, as long as powerful men continue to manipulate the flow of information to perpetuate their elite status (within a precariat system), then we will continue to see people used and abused as egos tug at geography that, at the end of the day, comes back to the perpetuation of extractive economics.
Another good article (no surprise). The surprising thing is everyone can see that Putin is not going to give up fighting this early but seems to think the Ukrainians can be persuaded to. It's dumb to even try - it'll just give the Ukrainians practice in not listening to you - hardly what 'realistic' diplomacy is supposed to be about.
I assume the Ukrainians are planning a 'long game'. They know they aren't going anywhere and have hopes Russia is made to bleed and suffer, on what is after all foreign soil, they may tire of it. Perhaps not in months but perhaps in years. The difference is that they have the tools and expertise to add to Russian attrition and misery with conventional forces rather than merely relying on an insurgency, which after all worked in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It also seems to me everyone over-estimates the impact of sanctions in the short term and under-estimate the their impact over the very long term. Occupying forces cost money and in the not too distant future Russia is going to be selling a lot less hydro-carbons - which was about all their economy was good at in the first place.
"it'll just give the Ukrainians practice in not listening to you"
Lovely phrase. There must be some consideration in diplomatic circles about what happens if the West does falter. Ukraine will not give up; nor will the Baltics, Poland, Finland, Sweden; Czechia and Slovakia think along similar lines, perhaps Romania and Bulgaria?
It seems their experience of the “Falin-Kwiciński” doctrine has progressed their strategic thinking well beyond those in western Europe. Their elimination of Russian gas from Poland, the Baltics and Finland (secured before the war, implemented after) demonstrates this.
It still seems extraordinary that western Europeans would consider the risk of Russia blackmailing them over gas supplies minimal when it was an avowed policy directed at eastern Europeans since the 1960s.
In the long run, Putin is dead, more Russian pipelines will link to Asia, Russia can buy all the tech it needs from China, and Americans might realize there is no more reason to care about Ukraine than Belarus or Moldova or Georgia.
Treeamigo, you're over-simplifying theses issues. Of course, gas pipe lines linking Russia to Asia are physically possible to build, but the economics have to stack up, and it's unclear that they will. Even if they do, these lines won't replace the massive revenue drop from losing Europe as a long term customer. First up Asian nations are mostly well supplied with energy already, so the high prices commanded in Europe will have to fall to be competitive. Again, Asian nations will note how Russia has repeatedly used gas as a geo-political weapon in Europe, and be wary of falling into the same trap. There might be some Asian demand for Russian gas, but it will be limited and at much lower price points than Europe was prepared to pay. Again, "tech" can be indeed be bought from China, but the Chinese are also sensitive to geo-political trends. To date the Chinese have been very reluctant to assist Russia beyond mere platitudes. It doesn't hurt them to see Russia weakened somewhat. Moreover, would China supply Russia with cutting edge tech, if they were threatened with sanctions and a loss of access to their enormous Western markets if they did? I very much doubt it. Finally, American are unlikely to lose interest in backing Ukraine. Finally after decades of internal squabbling over wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, they finally have a 'good' war that democrats and republicans can both get behind. They haven't had one since WW2. They have a perfect 'baddie' in Putin and his crazy propagandists, and a perfect hero in Zelenskyy and his soldier-citizens. Memes of the American War of Independence merge with memes from Starwars and Lord of the Rings. Frankly, the US is just LOVING this conflict, for a host of reasons. And when Putin eventually dies or is overthrown, all bets are off. Dictatorships are brittle. My guess is Russia will splinter. But perhaps I'm an optimist.
The facts are 1) that Russia currently controls and will control much of four oblasts and is taking steps to annex them formally, 2) that defense is easier than offense and Ukraine lacks the weaponry and manpower to launch sustained offensive operations against entrenched defensive positions 3) Neither the US or EU are going to give Ukraine the offensive weaponry (aircraft, cruise missiles (incl JASSM-type) required to retake Russian positions, which all border Russia and Crimea for resupply), and Russia has the means to punish Ukraine in Kiev and Odessa and Lviv for offensive operations in the East or South 4) Ukraine’s economy is a shambles, its ports are blockaded and Ukraine is almost entirely dependent on handouts from the West to continue its war effort, rebuild or even continue as an economic going concern. Agree that Ukraine will never accept annexation, but a ceasefire that delays the annexation process and opens the ports, returns Kherson and the north/west bank of the river in Kherson Oblast to Ukraine as well as any territory beyond Donetsk/Luhansk in the East (eg Kharkiv environs) might be doable and sensible by the end of summer. That outcome would be preferable to stalemate along Russia’s line of control and annexation behind it, which is the alternative.
As far as the history of partition (and/or population displacement) goes, surely you realize that the examples you cite (India/Pakistan and Israel) were merely the tail end of the post WWII process that saw borders redrawn or arbitrarily created in all of central and Eastern Europe (from Italy and Germany all the way to Ukraine, a good portion of which was Poland pre-war), all of the Middle East, much of Africa and a bit in Asia (Tibet, Singapore). It is a practice that goes back millennia.
"3) Neither the US or EU are going to give Ukraine the offensive weaponry (aircraft, cruise missiles (incl JASSM-type) required to retake Russian positions, which all border Russia and Crimea for resupply), and Russia has the means to punish Ukraine in Kiev and Odessa and Lviv for offensive operations in the East or South"
That is not a fact; it is a prediction about the future. It might very easily be wrong. So far the West has in three months gone from supplying only shoulder-fired missiles to supplying tanks, modern tube artillery and harpoon antiship missiles. In three months there might well be rocket artillery and SAMs, and perhaps more still three months after that.
"4) Ukraine’s economy is a shambles, its ports are blockaded and Ukraine is almost entirely dependent on handouts from the West to continue its war effort"
As long as the western countries are willing to pay that is no issue. Quite contrary, the Russian economy is under more stress than the western economies, the economic front is a Russian problem.
"2) that defense is easier than offense and Ukraine lacks the weaponry and manpower to launch sustained offensive operations against entrenched defensive positions"
That is in this general form a useless simplification. Russia has to defend a long front line with less infantry than the enemy has, an enemy that operates on the interior lines. We will most likely not see larger Ukranian offensive operations in the next two months, but next year the situation is much more unclear esp. when Russia does not mobilize.
"3) Neither the US or EU are going to give Ukraine the offensive weaponry (aircraft, cruise missiles (incl JASSM-type) required to retake Russian position"
You do not take positions with cruise missiles and you do not need them. Ukraine needs artillery, tanks and the ability to defend against larger Russian air strikes, here the western countries are delivering.
thank you
The very essence of a sober and therefore diifficult assessment. I for one am happy to leave the 'safe to assume' predictions to the many, confident journos and other 'experts'...
I feel so guilty for having children. Are they going to experience a world war, if not with Russia then with China later down the line? I have woken up fast. This world we are in now is not the one I thought we lived in and I feel in despair.
Russia has no ability to launch a world war. China has no desire to. Enjoy your children (if they are young) or encourage them to give you grandchildren (if they are older).
Who will win? Professor, the points you make can surely lead us to a wider political engagement answering the question - Who is already losing? Perhaps time to challenge the geopolitics of land, state and nation and look at what disappeared after a few years as the 'sexy' multilateral trend - Rights Based Programming? Naive? Yes, as long as powerful men continue to manipulate the flow of information to perpetuate their elite status (within a precariat system), then we will continue to see people used and abused as egos tug at geography that, at the end of the day, comes back to the perpetuation of extractive economics.