It is alleged that Churchill used the term “It is impossible to negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it’s mouth”. Surely this is the position that Ukraine is in. The West, us, NATO, should have negotiated a timescale for Ukraine to join NATO during the negotiations with Russia in 1994, rather than accepting the promise that Russia would not invade if NATO agreed that Ukraine would not be allowed to join. Those days, before Putin, were the equivalent of the period in Germany between Hitler becoming Chancellor and the Nazis reoccupied the Ruhr. In 1936. No one can believe that Putin will respect any negotiations when his mind operates in Stalin mode. The West must find a way of increasing the pressure on the sale of oil that currently funds Russia’s war effort. I know how finely the line is drawn between preventing oil tankers transporting oil from delivering that oil to its customers but this is the Achilles heal of Russia’s war.
Have people noticed that Russia seems to never be asked to make any concessions beyond an unenforceable promise not to invade again? And who trusts Putin to keep his word if he thinks he can benefit by breaking it? Frankly the way the war has run I don't think it deserves top be given lots of concessionas because it's an irresistable force. I had thought it almost in the super power class at the start of the war but it's military has performed poorly, is in a down hill spiral and its economy is slowly but surely heading into trouble and unsustainable deficits. Just because its leader has ideas above his station I don't see why the rest of the world ought to encourage and defer to him.
It should be noted that the claim that Boris Johnson personally prevented Ukraine from agreeing to peace terms is Russian disinformation. Johnson had no veto over Ukrainian peace negotiations -- he gave his opinion, one of many considered by the Ukrainian leadership.
What scuppered peace negotiations were the revelations, following the forced Russian withdrawal from the environs of Kyiv, of horrific Russian atrocities against civilians, particularly in Bucha. Those atrocities showed Russia's true intentions at the time, and the impossibility of negotiating an enforceable agreement with the Putin regime.
Please let's not forget that imperialist Russia must also 1. pay reparations to Ukraine for all what has been destroyed, and must also 2. deliver all Russian war criminals to The Hague, and must also 3. repatriate all the abducted children and adults.
I don't think the President of Russia could countenance an agreement in which he loses face by giving back all the territory Russia seized since 2014 and has no control over whether Ukraine becomes a member of NATO or has some kind of agreement with NATO. As long as China, North Korea and India are bank-rolling Russia with trade, money and access to certain materials, Russia appears able to sustain this war for a long time. In these conditions it is hard to see how this can be settled without some kind of face-saving compromise.
After Chechnya war 1999, Dubrovka theatre 2002, Beslan school 2004, Politkovskaya assassination 2006, Litvinenko assassination 2006, Georgia war 2008, Estemirova assassination 2009, Ukraine war 2014, MH17 2014, Nemzov assassination 2015, Syria war 2016, Skripal assassination 2018, and Ukraine war 2022 - why should one care one bit about Putin's "face"?
Andreas, the point is that Putin cares about Putin's "face", therefore he will not stop this war unless there is some kind of face-saving arrangement that he can live with. You correctly identify the kind of mentality the world is having to deal with. Either that, or he will have to be destroyed, and hold your breath for what that would entail and what would replace him.
Putin does not have to be destroyed in Russia. All the West would have had to do - albeit it being too late now, with regards to incoming Emperor Donald I and his likely Herald Grenell - was to arm Ukraine properly so Russia could have been defeated on Ukrainian territory. I have been there several times now, and saw with my own eyes, what terrible consequences Team Biden & Scholz continued incrementalism and redlinery, their total lack of strategy, have.
Andreas, I would caution against taking for granted that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. Right now there is a better than 50% probability of that being the outcome, but there are still 4 months to go with lots of moving parts whose results are really hard to predict in terms of direction of travel, scope and impact. As for strategy and red lines - yes I agree without the benefit of seeing it first hand, the results arising from a country fighting with one arm tied behind its back must be terrible. But from a NATO perspective there is a strategy - it is to tie Russia down without provoking them into yet more extreme military adventures - driven of course by fear of escalation. Sadly, Ukraine pays a heavy price for this cautionary posture. You may think that a more aggressive Western posture may have backed Russia off - that's one possibility, but there are also worse ones, and no doubt the leadership cadres in the NATO alliance have done much homework on the range of possibilities. Added to that is the long lag between commitments and delivery because of supply-chain issues and politics in the countries manufacturing the materiel. This is a major weakness no doubt fueling the chutzpah in Russia.
A very useful summary of the current obstacles to achieving a diplomatic solution. It is often the case that 'realist' theories of international relations are not realistic, and this is another example. From memory wasn't some form of
"proper referendums to allow residents to state their preferences (but including those that fled as well as those that stayed),"
included in the Minsk Accords? Again from my imperfect memory this concept wasn't agree partly because agreement could not be reached on what constittues "proper referendums". There are models of how to conduct electoral tests in disputed territories but they take time and money. Also it seems unlikely that Putin would agree to anything that looks like a properly implemented free and fair electoral process. There is also the question of what is motivating Putin to continue the conflict. What is his highest priority - securing regional stability or his own survival? If it is the latter then anything that is not something that can be presented by Putin as Ukraine surrendering to his demands seems unachievable. Of course that view assumes that his survival cannot be put at risk by Russian elites and other Russian actors becoming hostile to the continuing war.
There are now a large number of well informed European and US analysts trying to second guess how an incoming Trump administration would tackle these and many other questions re ending this conflict. No doubt lucky readers of this sub stack will see further accurate summaries of this debate as it develops in the months leading up to the US election.
I actually remember the Korean War (the "Glorious Gloucesters") and the negotiations at Panmunjom which, when I last looked, were still ongoing. I would be very interested in Lawrence Freedman's view whether an analogous outcome is possible in Ukraine.
I think the possibilty of the war becoming a 'frozen conflict' is reasonably high given tnat the Russian aggressor gives encouraging signs of running out of money and equipment and seems incapable of signficant offensives. That said I can't see America putting thousands of it's troops on the border for decades.
Very different situation. In March 1953, the death of Joseph Stalin helped spur negotiations. While the Chinese leader Mao Zedong was not then willing to compromise, the new Soviet leadership issued a statement two weeks after Stalin's death, which called for a quick end to hostilities.
Thanks for reminding me - I had read that article. But Kotkin's talking about the longer term I was wondering if fighting might end with the differences remaining unreconciled. Neither side having the resources and or will to continue fighting, at least at anything like the present intensity the war, like old soldiers, would never die but just fade away.
Agh, there’s another FA article on exactly this, what if the current invasion & war ended in an armistice ala Korea ‘53, but I can’t put my finger on the title. If I find it I will let you know!
It is alleged that Churchill used the term “It is impossible to negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it’s mouth”. Surely this is the position that Ukraine is in. The West, us, NATO, should have negotiated a timescale for Ukraine to join NATO during the negotiations with Russia in 1994, rather than accepting the promise that Russia would not invade if NATO agreed that Ukraine would not be allowed to join. Those days, before Putin, were the equivalent of the period in Germany between Hitler becoming Chancellor and the Nazis reoccupied the Ruhr. In 1936. No one can believe that Putin will respect any negotiations when his mind operates in Stalin mode. The West must find a way of increasing the pressure on the sale of oil that currently funds Russia’s war effort. I know how finely the line is drawn between preventing oil tankers transporting oil from delivering that oil to its customers but this is the Achilles heal of Russia’s war.
Have people noticed that Russia seems to never be asked to make any concessions beyond an unenforceable promise not to invade again? And who trusts Putin to keep his word if he thinks he can benefit by breaking it? Frankly the way the war has run I don't think it deserves top be given lots of concessionas because it's an irresistable force. I had thought it almost in the super power class at the start of the war but it's military has performed poorly, is in a down hill spiral and its economy is slowly but surely heading into trouble and unsustainable deficits. Just because its leader has ideas above his station I don't see why the rest of the world ought to encourage and defer to him.
It should be noted that the claim that Boris Johnson personally prevented Ukraine from agreeing to peace terms is Russian disinformation. Johnson had no veto over Ukrainian peace negotiations -- he gave his opinion, one of many considered by the Ukrainian leadership.
What scuppered peace negotiations were the revelations, following the forced Russian withdrawal from the environs of Kyiv, of horrific Russian atrocities against civilians, particularly in Bucha. Those atrocities showed Russia's true intentions at the time, and the impossibility of negotiating an enforceable agreement with the Putin regime.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. It’s hard to believe that Putin will agree to anything Ukrainians see as reasonable terms.
Please let's not forget that imperialist Russia must also 1. pay reparations to Ukraine for all what has been destroyed, and must also 2. deliver all Russian war criminals to The Hague, and must also 3. repatriate all the abducted children and adults.
Another fine article. Thank you!
I don't think the President of Russia could countenance an agreement in which he loses face by giving back all the territory Russia seized since 2014 and has no control over whether Ukraine becomes a member of NATO or has some kind of agreement with NATO. As long as China, North Korea and India are bank-rolling Russia with trade, money and access to certain materials, Russia appears able to sustain this war for a long time. In these conditions it is hard to see how this can be settled without some kind of face-saving compromise.
After Chechnya war 1999, Dubrovka theatre 2002, Beslan school 2004, Politkovskaya assassination 2006, Litvinenko assassination 2006, Georgia war 2008, Estemirova assassination 2009, Ukraine war 2014, MH17 2014, Nemzov assassination 2015, Syria war 2016, Skripal assassination 2018, and Ukraine war 2022 - why should one care one bit about Putin's "face"?
Andreas, the point is that Putin cares about Putin's "face", therefore he will not stop this war unless there is some kind of face-saving arrangement that he can live with. You correctly identify the kind of mentality the world is having to deal with. Either that, or he will have to be destroyed, and hold your breath for what that would entail and what would replace him.
Putin does not have to be destroyed in Russia. All the West would have had to do - albeit it being too late now, with regards to incoming Emperor Donald I and his likely Herald Grenell - was to arm Ukraine properly so Russia could have been defeated on Ukrainian territory. I have been there several times now, and saw with my own eyes, what terrible consequences Team Biden & Scholz continued incrementalism and redlinery, their total lack of strategy, have.
Andreas, I would caution against taking for granted that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. Right now there is a better than 50% probability of that being the outcome, but there are still 4 months to go with lots of moving parts whose results are really hard to predict in terms of direction of travel, scope and impact. As for strategy and red lines - yes I agree without the benefit of seeing it first hand, the results arising from a country fighting with one arm tied behind its back must be terrible. But from a NATO perspective there is a strategy - it is to tie Russia down without provoking them into yet more extreme military adventures - driven of course by fear of escalation. Sadly, Ukraine pays a heavy price for this cautionary posture. You may think that a more aggressive Western posture may have backed Russia off - that's one possibility, but there are also worse ones, and no doubt the leadership cadres in the NATO alliance have done much homework on the range of possibilities. Added to that is the long lag between commitments and delivery because of supply-chain issues and politics in the countries manufacturing the materiel. This is a major weakness no doubt fueling the chutzpah in Russia.
As to the letter of the Nobel laureates: Putin has asked his house personnel not to disturb him for a week as he is recovering from a laughing fit.
A very useful summary of the current obstacles to achieving a diplomatic solution. It is often the case that 'realist' theories of international relations are not realistic, and this is another example. From memory wasn't some form of
"proper referendums to allow residents to state their preferences (but including those that fled as well as those that stayed),"
included in the Minsk Accords? Again from my imperfect memory this concept wasn't agree partly because agreement could not be reached on what constittues "proper referendums". There are models of how to conduct electoral tests in disputed territories but they take time and money. Also it seems unlikely that Putin would agree to anything that looks like a properly implemented free and fair electoral process. There is also the question of what is motivating Putin to continue the conflict. What is his highest priority - securing regional stability or his own survival? If it is the latter then anything that is not something that can be presented by Putin as Ukraine surrendering to his demands seems unachievable. Of course that view assumes that his survival cannot be put at risk by Russian elites and other Russian actors becoming hostile to the continuing war.
There are now a large number of well informed European and US analysts trying to second guess how an incoming Trump administration would tackle these and many other questions re ending this conflict. No doubt lucky readers of this sub stack will see further accurate summaries of this debate as it develops in the months leading up to the US election.
I actually remember the Korean War (the "Glorious Gloucesters") and the negotiations at Panmunjom which, when I last looked, were still ongoing. I would be very interested in Lawrence Freedman's view whether an analogous outcome is possible in Ukraine.
I think the possibilty of the war becoming a 'frozen conflict' is reasonably high given tnat the Russian aggressor gives encouraging signs of running out of money and equipment and seems incapable of signficant offensives. That said I can't see America putting thousands of it's troops on the border for decades.
The same could have been said for both Korea south of 38 degrees north and Germany, yet there they remain…
Very different situation. In March 1953, the death of Joseph Stalin helped spur negotiations. While the Chinese leader Mao Zedong was not then willing to compromise, the new Soviet leadership issued a statement two weeks after Stalin's death, which called for a quick end to hostilities.
Hmm - seems rather similar to me, Trump replaces Biden.
Check out Stephen Kotkin's excellent Foreign Affairs article “The Five Futures of Russia,” one of which is Russia as North Korea.
Thanks for reminding me - I had read that article. But Kotkin's talking about the longer term I was wondering if fighting might end with the differences remaining unreconciled. Neither side having the resources and or will to continue fighting, at least at anything like the present intensity the war, like old soldiers, would never die but just fade away.
Agh, there’s another FA article on exactly this, what if the current invasion & war ended in an armistice ala Korea ‘53, but I can’t put my finger on the title. If I find it I will let you know!