An F-16 Fighting Falcon - the latest offensive weapon the West have agreed to supply to Ukraine Prime Minister, you believe in the nuclear deterrent? - Oh, yes. - Why? - Pardon? - Why? - Because it deters. - Whom? - Pardon? - Whom? Whom does it deter?
When the history of this war is written one of the great talking points will be how quickly crossed were the Western red lines about providing military aid. The war is only 16 months old and while Ukraine wants more (notably very long range artillery) really they’ve got just about everything they’ve asked for albeit not in the quantities they desired. Sure I’d have liked it to come faster but really the rate of arming and progress has been quite remarkable.
The other talking point will be the transformation of Putin from masterful risk taker to ineffectual blusterer. I’ve lost count of the number of times he’s threatened nuclear retaliation only to demonstrate that the big problem with nuclear weapons is you can’t really use them.
My feeling is what’s happened with Putin and the West has been a reckless bully who’s pushed a placid giant too far. Every step he took, he got away with because the West didn’t really want to fight. but he didn’t realize that he was building increasing resentment in a stronger adversary. When he finally pushed too far the giant roared with rage and reacted with a strength Putin never saw coming. The economic sanctions alone are unprecedented and now the West has got the oil price cap going the medium to long term outlook for the Russian economy looks disastrous. And by medium term I mean in about 18 months. I can’t see them being lifted while Putin or someone like minded rules Russia.
The Western response to the Russian takeover of Crimea may have been muted by the fact that Crimea has changed hands a great many times over its long history, part of which - from 1774 until the 1990s - witnessed Russian (Soviet) control of the territory. So perhaps this explains why the West responded differently to the more recent invasion of Eastern Ukraine than it did to that of Crimea - to whom Crimea belongs is hotly contestable.
To the contrary, the invasion of Ukraine proper is a big salami slice that simply could not be digested, nor is Russia anywhere near willing to contemplate giving it back, which I believe contributes to the very dangerous situation the world now faces.
Evidence suggests that Russia has found effective ways of evading the worst brunt of Western sanctions, not surprising, so they have the oxygen with which to carry on. The more they carry on, the more the Ukrainians, backed by the West, will "up the ante" in order to recover the slices it has lost or could still lose. If this results in the Russian regime feeling it's back is truly against the wall, that is when I think the West is at greatest risk to extreme reaction from Moscow.
One has to think that quietly under the hood, the US Administration has made it clear in no uncertain terms to Vladimir Putin that if he uses any nuclear weapons or power stations against Ukraine, much of Russia will be annihilated before they have a chance to retaliate - no second thoughts. With the vast sums of money and intelligence the US throws at such matters, there can be little doubt they are fully prepared to do it at little risk to themselves or others and the Russians must know this. Hence I am less concerned about a nuclear exchange than I am about the prospect of this war dragging on at great expense and loss of life for years, because the sanctions regime is insufficiently effective to choke off the Russian war machine.
Regarding Crimea, I believe the thinking has changed. The long history does not even give Russia the right to take it, never mind that it's been part of a UN sanctioned sovereign Ukraine since 1991. Now it's been demonstrated as to why Ukraine, for its security, must have it returned. I think the West's reluctance to respond to the salami slice in 2014 is at fault but this is hindsight. We did not respond as strongly we should have, thought just one slice....no harm. We should have been more on the ball about what was happening and evident even then.
I agree, the history does not give Russia a right to take it back; I only pointed that out to explain what I think is one reason for the West's hesitation to intervene too heavily at that time. Perhaps we should have, but that's obviously water under the bridge. You're right that the name of the game was known even then, as Putin's desire to recapture the former Soviet entities was already evident.
Well that's an angle on this. No, Biden did not want to get involved in a war especially after leaving Afghanistan and having so much to deal with at home.
"The left" into mitigation of climate change was of course happy to see a pipeline destroyed though we don't know who did this as far as I know. The result is favorable both for the war against Russia's aggression and for the CC issue which is a world issue.
Trump was, is and would be a total disaster, including re Ukraine and CC. I have no idea what the strategy is for some supporting Trump candidates or if they are.
Anything I would say in response would prove your point which is where you are at--- above it all, no good or bad, we are all crazy but you are sane can sit back and the world will just take care of itself, no need to take part, other than here to say your bit.... so righteous
Your last paragraph, Marc, is particularly interesting.
IF this were indeed the case, then the US government would know that Russia would not dare a radical retaliation... And therefore, the necessary weapons could be supplied at a higher rate.
Definitely the article by Prof. Freedmana emphasizes (quite rightly in my opinion) the time factor and the gradual development of opinions about the situation.
A similar consideration could perhaps be developed after a "ceasefire" prevails (I don't want to use the term truce directly). Postponing the final arrangement of the territory could be beneficial; provided that the West helps Ukraine to recover to become a more attractive option for disputed territories.
(Technically, I mean, for example, a temporary administration under international supervision, with the perspective of a referendum after say 10 or 15 years.)
Jan, I'm not seeing that the necessary conditions for agreement to a ceasefire are anywhere close. Furthermore, I haven't seen any evidence that the Government of Ukraine is prepared to countenance anything other than a complete Russian evacuation of the territory it invaded, perhaps also including Crimea. Western governments have said all along that they will continue to support Ukraine and that Ukraine will decide when enough is enough. While it remains to be seen how long this position will hold, I think it indicates, sadly, that the most likely outlook is one of protracted warfare.
Why is "to whom Crimea belongs" more "hotly contestable" than Ukraine? Much of Ukraine had been part of the Russian empire since before Crimea was annexed in the late 18th century--and it was annexed along with southern Ukraine. Is southern Ukraine just as hotly contestable? Even if Crimea is not part of "Ukraine proper," why is it <i>historically</i> any less worthy of freedom from Russian control than the rest of Ukraine?
I understand that you're attempting to explain the "West's hesitation" about Crimea, but the same logic justifies hesitation over all of Ukraine, other than perhaps the chunk of Galicia that was part of the Austrian Empire and then Poland. We shouldn't further this logic in any form. The reason people find it easier to accept Russian control over Crimea than Ukraine is because of the specific type of Russian imperialism in Crimea (i.e. ethnic cleansing and colonialism and imperialist propaganda), not because the peninsula "changed hands" a lot.
The USAF planners have angered many by asserting that MAD is not needed. Precision weapons can accomplish the necessary effects without the horrid nuclear aftereffects. But changing the strategy affects a lot of ricebowls.
I might think the US response to excessive Russian aggression might be destruction of Russian oil facilities that are needed to fund Russia and now a pipeline allows the Chinese some protection from a sea blockade within the South China Sea; those defensive islands can be readily mined from below (and likely already are, pillars of sand).
I think you would better understand by not picking pieces of comments out of context. Taken altogether, I think I've been very clear, so you can make of the whole discussion as you will.
Re: Georgia. A tepid response? Obama/Biden/Hillary offered Putin a “reset”- unconditional forgiveness. No sanctions, no ostracism. They flat out rewarded Putin for partition and invasion.
A very interesting and plausible picture of the situation in regard to attacks inside Russia . You clearly believe the Ukrainians are conniving in and perhaps sponsoring attacks inside Russia on targets not directly linked to Putin's assault on Ukraine. The aim presumably is to destabilise the regime.
I absolutely agree that Ukraine can have no settled peace until Putin is removed. It should be a covert aim of Western policy to achieve this. That should sit aside the only other aim of driving Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. In both cases, we have to try to avoid provoking nuclear war.
I worry however about Ukrainian involvement in matters like the drone attack on the Kremlin. These do nothing to help free Ukrainian soil and risk justifying Putin's ridiculous narrative that Russia is under threat.
Ukraine has been invaded and is at war. Ukraine is not interested in occupying Russian territory, but attacking supply lines, power stations, military bases, military equipment and strategic targets (including the Kremlin) is to be expected. Russian territory can also be used as a pass-through for flanking attacks in Donbas. But attacking the residences of leaders? Not so much. Too high a risk of collateral/civilian damage and effectively excuses Russian attacks on civilian residences. Moreover, Kyiv needs to consider whether the gains from minor attacks with low yield drones inside Russia is worth the payback (eg recent missile barrages against Kyiv).
However, I am in favor of a ceasefire agreement and one where Kyiv recognizes Russian possession of Crimea, precisely because Putin will be around for a few more years. Wait him out. If the war is still going on when Putin goes, a hardliner will be the successor. If there have been a few years of peace, there is a chance for normalization. We also need to recognize that the US and NATO cannot afford to send weaponry at this pace, that Ukraine cannot be rebuilt while an active war zone (and prolonged war will lead to mass migration of Ukrainian males to the EU (women with teenage sons will emigrate, hollowing out the next generation of conscripts). Moreover, Putin has shown us that his conventional forces are no threat to NATO or the EU, and NATO has already accepted Russian domination and occupation (and soon, nukes) in Belarus, right on NATO borders, as well as a long-standing occupation and neutering/demilitarization of Moldova, also on NATO borders. There is zero coherency in saying that Ukraine is of strategic importance but nukes and Russian troops in Belarus are fine. Support of Ukraine is really an opportunistic policy by the US (and a reluctant one for France and Germany). Remember that the US was convinced that Russia was going to invade Ukraine and yet send no heavy weapons (only MPADS and rifles). They expected Ukraine to lose and offered to evacuate Zelensky. It was only Russia’s botched invasion strategy (and the UA’s plucky defense, aided by Western intel) that convinced the US to ramp up arms slowly, step by step.
While Biden is surrounded by a few Ukraine true-believers and Maidan coup-plotters, the political reality is that US intervention in Ukraine polls very well with his base, who after the Russian collusion nonsense saw Putin as enemy #1 and Ukraine as a hero of Trump’s impeachment. Biden’s base isn’t the whole country, however, and the whole country won’t be backing $100 billion a year in perpetuity to Ukraine while Siemens and Lafarge get the rebuilding contracts. Moreover, Biden just abandoned an ally on Afghanistan, supported the abandonment of Iraq to the Iranians in 2010 and beyond and was a leading proponent of completely abandoning South Vietnam (not just US troops but banning weapons sales). Biden should not be trusted.
Thanks for your reply. We clearly agree on quite a lot which I will not repeat. I would take a more positive view of Joe Biden than you but the Republicans certainly cannot be trusted.
The US and, even more so, the European response to the invasion has been hesitant but on the whole has eventually got to the right place. The courage and common sense of the Ukrainians, together with the corrupt incompetence of Russian political and military leaders,,` ensured that early blunders were not fatal.
Lawrence Freedman's original post pointed out that Putin is clearly uncertain what to do next. That is a good thing but a way out depends on powerful groups in Russia abandoning him.
Putin’s strategy is clear. He occupies much of three of the four Oblasts he declared to be Russian territory and has a land bridge to Crimea. He has built defenses in depth all along the front lines, reinforced with the conscripts he has called up. Whether they fight or run during the awaited UA “offensive” will be key. Offensive action against dug in opposition supported by lots of artillery is hard- a 3 to 1 advantage is usually necessary for the attacker. Ukraine doesn’t have this. Also, the UA can’t use AirPower along the front (not even F16s would help). Putin probably likes his odds of holding this territory. Ukraine, for its part, hopes to break through somewhere and then cause havoc in the rear lines, ideally isolating a large pocket of Russian troops along the land bridge and then taking out the Kerch bridge. Russia knows this, obviously, so a move in Luhansk instead (Svatove?) might be an alternative. Who knows? Will be interesting. I expect there will be some sort of ceasefire by next spring, but the front lines will look different at that point
Arming Ukraine is opportunistic and rational. Let’s see how much territory they can regain in the next year and see how much damage they can do to Russian forces. However, I agree that fighting forever to retake all the lost territory is senseless. Ukraine cannot afford it monetarily, economically or in human cost and the US can’t afford to be paying $100 billion a year in perpetuity either. Eventually a deal will have to be cut, Ukraine can be re-armed and rebuilt (armed neutrality with security guarantees would be good) and we can wait Russia out. I believe that France and Germany want this sort of outcome, as does the US military (maybe not Biden and his political advisors)
The media and progressives are rabid war hawks only because of Trump and the Russian collusion scam. They were happy to appease Putin after the Georgia partition, promise him “more flexibility” after the 2012 elections, mock Romney for naming Putin an enemy in 2012, refused to arm Ukraine and let Germany build Nordstream 2 after the 2014 Ukraine invasion (Biden gave his blessing for Nordstream), refused to send heavy weapons to Ukraine even though they thought Russia was definitely going to invade (missile and drone defenses alone would have saved thousands of civilian lives), etc. Now Putin is the greatest threat the progressives have ever seen. “ We’ve always been at war with East Asia”. Orwell was prescient in many ways
The foreign policy people like Blinken and Nuland aren’t ultimately in control- the political people from Obama world are in control. Right now the political polling aligns with what the foreign policy blob wants and Ukraine is a successful political “wedge” issue, but ultimately political calculations will reign.
Susan Rice and Klain were the pipeline from progressive activists and Obamaworld into the Biden admin. Now both are gone. Neera is closer to the Clintons than the Obamas. Almost wonder if Obama is implicitly not endorsing Biden’s second term. Or is it that Biden is throwing the moles out? I doubt it- he will need the activist money and feet on the ground. Anyway, don’t want to stray further off topic.
Глава Минобороны Украины Алексей Резников заявил, что Киев мог бы вернуться в переговорный процесс с Москвой, однако для этого необходимо, чтобы РФ изменила заявленные цели спецоперации. По мнению министра, «денацификация» и «демилитаризация», утвержденные Кремлем как цели СВО, предполагают уничтожение украинской нации. Резников добавил, что Украина может жить «нормально, по-добрососедски со всеми соседями».
It would appear that the Clowns in the WH have some inkling of this strategy. Give Ukraine little slices slowly, so Big Mean Putin cannot say NATO has crossed the line and must be dealt with directly. But after today’s remarkable events in Russia, why are we still afraid of pissing off Pootin?! It is time to give the brave Ukrainians the jets and long-range defenses they need to end this travesty!
Глава Минобороны Украины Алексей Резников заявил, что Киев мог бы вернуться в переговорный процесс с Москвой, однако для этого необходимо, чтобы РФ изменила заявленные цели спецоперации. По мнению министра, «денацификация» и «демилитаризация», утвержденные Кремлем как цели СВО, предполагают уничтожение украинской нации. Резников добавил, что Украина может жить «нормально, по-добрососедски со всеми соседями».
The problem with salami slicers is that the thickness setting goes all the way to 11. Sooner or later the nut behind the wheel turns the dial to the max. Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler all went for it. Only Alexander (sort of) got away with it.
Moscow has driven itself in to a dead end. The longer the stalemate lasts the worst the outcome for Russia.
In the short term the UA is a modern country with the ability to develop and manufacture rockets capable of striking Moscow and a military, many middle aged with occupations, of parents and young people fighting to protect their families from death and mutilation. And Belarus is ripe for UA to salami slice a second front for Russia with a leader in waiting who won the last election.
Longer term NATO and China cannot allow Moscow to succeed nor the war drag on. Firstly every neighbour of a powerful autocratic state is growing convinced they need nuclear weapons to avoid UA’s fate. And secondly Russian state power has shown itself too weak to hold its empire together raising the likelihood of fracture and nuclear armed anarchy.
China and the US are clearly working together sending the same message. Russia should withdraw and concentrate on improving governance, instituting the rule of law, and raising the living standards of its people.
Please note that the Hungarian name is Matyas (Rákosi Mátyás) which is equivalent to Matthias, rather than MatyOs. Thank you again for writing so clearly about this conflict.
I don't think that the Kherson bridge should have been listed among "targets in Russia" that Ukraine has struck. The attack happened on the Ukrainian side of the Kerch strait, so if anything there is a strong argument to be made that it was on Ukrainian territory.
When the history of this war is written one of the great talking points will be how quickly crossed were the Western red lines about providing military aid. The war is only 16 months old and while Ukraine wants more (notably very long range artillery) really they’ve got just about everything they’ve asked for albeit not in the quantities they desired. Sure I’d have liked it to come faster but really the rate of arming and progress has been quite remarkable.
The other talking point will be the transformation of Putin from masterful risk taker to ineffectual blusterer. I’ve lost count of the number of times he’s threatened nuclear retaliation only to demonstrate that the big problem with nuclear weapons is you can’t really use them.
My feeling is what’s happened with Putin and the West has been a reckless bully who’s pushed a placid giant too far. Every step he took, he got away with because the West didn’t really want to fight. but he didn’t realize that he was building increasing resentment in a stronger adversary. When he finally pushed too far the giant roared with rage and reacted with a strength Putin never saw coming. The economic sanctions alone are unprecedented and now the West has got the oil price cap going the medium to long term outlook for the Russian economy looks disastrous. And by medium term I mean in about 18 months. I can’t see them being lifted while Putin or someone like minded rules Russia.
“Roared with rage”? 😊
The Western response to the Russian takeover of Crimea may have been muted by the fact that Crimea has changed hands a great many times over its long history, part of which - from 1774 until the 1990s - witnessed Russian (Soviet) control of the territory. So perhaps this explains why the West responded differently to the more recent invasion of Eastern Ukraine than it did to that of Crimea - to whom Crimea belongs is hotly contestable.
To the contrary, the invasion of Ukraine proper is a big salami slice that simply could not be digested, nor is Russia anywhere near willing to contemplate giving it back, which I believe contributes to the very dangerous situation the world now faces.
Evidence suggests that Russia has found effective ways of evading the worst brunt of Western sanctions, not surprising, so they have the oxygen with which to carry on. The more they carry on, the more the Ukrainians, backed by the West, will "up the ante" in order to recover the slices it has lost or could still lose. If this results in the Russian regime feeling it's back is truly against the wall, that is when I think the West is at greatest risk to extreme reaction from Moscow.
One has to think that quietly under the hood, the US Administration has made it clear in no uncertain terms to Vladimir Putin that if he uses any nuclear weapons or power stations against Ukraine, much of Russia will be annihilated before they have a chance to retaliate - no second thoughts. With the vast sums of money and intelligence the US throws at such matters, there can be little doubt they are fully prepared to do it at little risk to themselves or others and the Russians must know this. Hence I am less concerned about a nuclear exchange than I am about the prospect of this war dragging on at great expense and loss of life for years, because the sanctions regime is insufficiently effective to choke off the Russian war machine.
Regarding Crimea, I believe the thinking has changed. The long history does not even give Russia the right to take it, never mind that it's been part of a UN sanctioned sovereign Ukraine since 1991. Now it's been demonstrated as to why Ukraine, for its security, must have it returned. I think the West's reluctance to respond to the salami slice in 2014 is at fault but this is hindsight. We did not respond as strongly we should have, thought just one slice....no harm. We should have been more on the ball about what was happening and evident even then.
I agree, the history does not give Russia a right to take it back; I only pointed that out to explain what I think is one reason for the West's hesitation to intervene too heavily at that time. Perhaps we should have, but that's obviously water under the bridge. You're right that the name of the game was known even then, as Putin's desire to recapture the former Soviet entities was already evident.
The whole subject of Ukraine's approaches to NATO and vice-versa is a lot more complicated and nuanced than you mention here. Please see this history, which seems quite useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
Well that's an angle on this. No, Biden did not want to get involved in a war especially after leaving Afghanistan and having so much to deal with at home.
"The left" into mitigation of climate change was of course happy to see a pipeline destroyed though we don't know who did this as far as I know. The result is favorable both for the war against Russia's aggression and for the CC issue which is a world issue.
Trump was, is and would be a total disaster, including re Ukraine and CC. I have no idea what the strategy is for some supporting Trump candidates or if they are.
Anything I would say in response would prove your point which is where you are at--- above it all, no good or bad, we are all crazy but you are sane can sit back and the world will just take care of itself, no need to take part, other than here to say your bit.... so righteous
Your last paragraph, Marc, is particularly interesting.
IF this were indeed the case, then the US government would know that Russia would not dare a radical retaliation... And therefore, the necessary weapons could be supplied at a higher rate.
Definitely the article by Prof. Freedmana emphasizes (quite rightly in my opinion) the time factor and the gradual development of opinions about the situation.
A similar consideration could perhaps be developed after a "ceasefire" prevails (I don't want to use the term truce directly). Postponing the final arrangement of the territory could be beneficial; provided that the West helps Ukraine to recover to become a more attractive option for disputed territories.
(Technically, I mean, for example, a temporary administration under international supervision, with the perspective of a referendum after say 10 or 15 years.)
Jan, I'm not seeing that the necessary conditions for agreement to a ceasefire are anywhere close. Furthermore, I haven't seen any evidence that the Government of Ukraine is prepared to countenance anything other than a complete Russian evacuation of the territory it invaded, perhaps also including Crimea. Western governments have said all along that they will continue to support Ukraine and that Ukraine will decide when enough is enough. While it remains to be seen how long this position will hold, I think it indicates, sadly, that the most likely outlook is one of protracted warfare.
"I'm not seeing that the necessary conditions for agreement to a ceasefire are anywhere close."
Okay, I just meant WHEN it happens. In any case "qui vivra, verra" :-)
We can only hope the "WHEN" will happen sooner than later.
Why is "to whom Crimea belongs" more "hotly contestable" than Ukraine? Much of Ukraine had been part of the Russian empire since before Crimea was annexed in the late 18th century--and it was annexed along with southern Ukraine. Is southern Ukraine just as hotly contestable? Even if Crimea is not part of "Ukraine proper," why is it <i>historically</i> any less worthy of freedom from Russian control than the rest of Ukraine?
I understand that you're attempting to explain the "West's hesitation" about Crimea, but the same logic justifies hesitation over all of Ukraine, other than perhaps the chunk of Galicia that was part of the Austrian Empire and then Poland. We shouldn't further this logic in any form. The reason people find it easier to accept Russian control over Crimea than Ukraine is because of the specific type of Russian imperialism in Crimea (i.e. ethnic cleansing and colonialism and imperialist propaganda), not because the peninsula "changed hands" a lot.
I'm trying to explain why I think such warfare will NOT happen - not even by accident. There is nothing "hawkish" here.
The USAF planners have angered many by asserting that MAD is not needed. Precision weapons can accomplish the necessary effects without the horrid nuclear aftereffects. But changing the strategy affects a lot of ricebowls.
I might think the US response to excessive Russian aggression might be destruction of Russian oil facilities that are needed to fund Russia and now a pipeline allows the Chinese some protection from a sea blockade within the South China Sea; those defensive islands can be readily mined from below (and likely already are, pillars of sand).
I think you would better understand by not picking pieces of comments out of context. Taken altogether, I think I've been very clear, so you can make of the whole discussion as you will.
Re: Georgia. A tepid response? Obama/Biden/Hillary offered Putin a “reset”- unconditional forgiveness. No sanctions, no ostracism. They flat out rewarded Putin for partition and invasion.
Good article. "Notable have been cruise missile attacks" should read "drone" in place of cruise missile.
Corrected. Thanks
A very interesting and plausible picture of the situation in regard to attacks inside Russia . You clearly believe the Ukrainians are conniving in and perhaps sponsoring attacks inside Russia on targets not directly linked to Putin's assault on Ukraine. The aim presumably is to destabilise the regime.
I absolutely agree that Ukraine can have no settled peace until Putin is removed. It should be a covert aim of Western policy to achieve this. That should sit aside the only other aim of driving Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. In both cases, we have to try to avoid provoking nuclear war.
I worry however about Ukrainian involvement in matters like the drone attack on the Kremlin. These do nothing to help free Ukrainian soil and risk justifying Putin's ridiculous narrative that Russia is under threat.
Ukraine has been invaded and is at war. Ukraine is not interested in occupying Russian territory, but attacking supply lines, power stations, military bases, military equipment and strategic targets (including the Kremlin) is to be expected. Russian territory can also be used as a pass-through for flanking attacks in Donbas. But attacking the residences of leaders? Not so much. Too high a risk of collateral/civilian damage and effectively excuses Russian attacks on civilian residences. Moreover, Kyiv needs to consider whether the gains from minor attacks with low yield drones inside Russia is worth the payback (eg recent missile barrages against Kyiv).
However, I am in favor of a ceasefire agreement and one where Kyiv recognizes Russian possession of Crimea, precisely because Putin will be around for a few more years. Wait him out. If the war is still going on when Putin goes, a hardliner will be the successor. If there have been a few years of peace, there is a chance for normalization. We also need to recognize that the US and NATO cannot afford to send weaponry at this pace, that Ukraine cannot be rebuilt while an active war zone (and prolonged war will lead to mass migration of Ukrainian males to the EU (women with teenage sons will emigrate, hollowing out the next generation of conscripts). Moreover, Putin has shown us that his conventional forces are no threat to NATO or the EU, and NATO has already accepted Russian domination and occupation (and soon, nukes) in Belarus, right on NATO borders, as well as a long-standing occupation and neutering/demilitarization of Moldova, also on NATO borders. There is zero coherency in saying that Ukraine is of strategic importance but nukes and Russian troops in Belarus are fine. Support of Ukraine is really an opportunistic policy by the US (and a reluctant one for France and Germany). Remember that the US was convinced that Russia was going to invade Ukraine and yet send no heavy weapons (only MPADS and rifles). They expected Ukraine to lose and offered to evacuate Zelensky. It was only Russia’s botched invasion strategy (and the UA’s plucky defense, aided by Western intel) that convinced the US to ramp up arms slowly, step by step.
While Biden is surrounded by a few Ukraine true-believers and Maidan coup-plotters, the political reality is that US intervention in Ukraine polls very well with his base, who after the Russian collusion nonsense saw Putin as enemy #1 and Ukraine as a hero of Trump’s impeachment. Biden’s base isn’t the whole country, however, and the whole country won’t be backing $100 billion a year in perpetuity to Ukraine while Siemens and Lafarge get the rebuilding contracts. Moreover, Biden just abandoned an ally on Afghanistan, supported the abandonment of Iraq to the Iranians in 2010 and beyond and was a leading proponent of completely abandoning South Vietnam (not just US troops but banning weapons sales). Biden should not be trusted.
Thanks for your reply. We clearly agree on quite a lot which I will not repeat. I would take a more positive view of Joe Biden than you but the Republicans certainly cannot be trusted.
The US and, even more so, the European response to the invasion has been hesitant but on the whole has eventually got to the right place. The courage and common sense of the Ukrainians, together with the corrupt incompetence of Russian political and military leaders,,` ensured that early blunders were not fatal.
Lawrence Freedman's original post pointed out that Putin is clearly uncertain what to do next. That is a good thing but a way out depends on powerful groups in Russia abandoning him.
Putin’s strategy is clear. He occupies much of three of the four Oblasts he declared to be Russian territory and has a land bridge to Crimea. He has built defenses in depth all along the front lines, reinforced with the conscripts he has called up. Whether they fight or run during the awaited UA “offensive” will be key. Offensive action against dug in opposition supported by lots of artillery is hard- a 3 to 1 advantage is usually necessary for the attacker. Ukraine doesn’t have this. Also, the UA can’t use AirPower along the front (not even F16s would help). Putin probably likes his odds of holding this territory. Ukraine, for its part, hopes to break through somewhere and then cause havoc in the rear lines, ideally isolating a large pocket of Russian troops along the land bridge and then taking out the Kerch bridge. Russia knows this, obviously, so a move in Luhansk instead (Svatove?) might be an alternative. Who knows? Will be interesting. I expect there will be some sort of ceasefire by next spring, but the front lines will look different at that point
Arming Ukraine is opportunistic and rational. Let’s see how much territory they can regain in the next year and see how much damage they can do to Russian forces. However, I agree that fighting forever to retake all the lost territory is senseless. Ukraine cannot afford it monetarily, economically or in human cost and the US can’t afford to be paying $100 billion a year in perpetuity either. Eventually a deal will have to be cut, Ukraine can be re-armed and rebuilt (armed neutrality with security guarantees would be good) and we can wait Russia out. I believe that France and Germany want this sort of outcome, as does the US military (maybe not Biden and his political advisors)
The media and progressives are rabid war hawks only because of Trump and the Russian collusion scam. They were happy to appease Putin after the Georgia partition, promise him “more flexibility” after the 2012 elections, mock Romney for naming Putin an enemy in 2012, refused to arm Ukraine and let Germany build Nordstream 2 after the 2014 Ukraine invasion (Biden gave his blessing for Nordstream), refused to send heavy weapons to Ukraine even though they thought Russia was definitely going to invade (missile and drone defenses alone would have saved thousands of civilian lives), etc. Now Putin is the greatest threat the progressives have ever seen. “ We’ve always been at war with East Asia”. Orwell was prescient in many ways
Did you speak with the president recently to learn this?
The foreign policy people like Blinken and Nuland aren’t ultimately in control- the political people from Obama world are in control. Right now the political polling aligns with what the foreign policy blob wants and Ukraine is a successful political “wedge” issue, but ultimately political calculations will reign.
Susan Rice and Klain were the pipeline from progressive activists and Obamaworld into the Biden admin. Now both are gone. Neera is closer to the Clintons than the Obamas. Almost wonder if Obama is implicitly not endorsing Biden’s second term. Or is it that Biden is throwing the moles out? I doubt it- he will need the activist money and feet on the ground. Anyway, don’t want to stray further off topic.
In my opinion Gazeta.ru is one of remaining in Russia interesting sources. (Mikhail Khodarionok is a columnist in it. )
https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2023/06/09/17114462.shtml
Глава Минобороны Украины Алексей Резников заявил, что Киев мог бы вернуться в переговорный процесс с Москвой, однако для этого необходимо, чтобы РФ изменила заявленные цели спецоперации. По мнению министра, «денацификация» и «демилитаризация», утвержденные Кремлем как цели СВО, предполагают уничтожение украинской нации. Резников добавил, что Украина может жить «нормально, по-добрососедски со всеми соседями».
Good summary. Worth the read and mostly factual.
"Fun fact", in case the audience haven't come across it.
Back in April 22, 2022 - 72% Shebekino residents who took part in an informal Telegram poll (out of 781 respondents) expressed support for the SMO
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxoPbb0XsAUCdS1?format=png
It would appear that the Clowns in the WH have some inkling of this strategy. Give Ukraine little slices slowly, so Big Mean Putin cannot say NATO has crossed the line and must be dealt with directly. But after today’s remarkable events in Russia, why are we still afraid of pissing off Pootin?! It is time to give the brave Ukrainians the jets and long-range defenses they need to end this travesty!
In my opinion Gazeta.ru is one of remaining in Russia interesting sources. (Mikhail Khodarionok is a columnist in it. )
https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2023/06/09/17114462.shtml
Глава Минобороны Украины Алексей Резников заявил, что Киев мог бы вернуться в переговорный процесс с Москвой, однако для этого необходимо, чтобы РФ изменила заявленные цели спецоперации. По мнению министра, «денацификация» и «демилитаризация», утвержденные Кремлем как цели СВО, предполагают уничтожение украинской нации. Резников добавил, что Украина может жить «нормально, по-добрососедски со всеми соседями».
The problem with salami slicers is that the thickness setting goes all the way to 11. Sooner or later the nut behind the wheel turns the dial to the max. Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler all went for it. Only Alexander (sort of) got away with it.
Moscow has driven itself in to a dead end. The longer the stalemate lasts the worst the outcome for Russia.
In the short term the UA is a modern country with the ability to develop and manufacture rockets capable of striking Moscow and a military, many middle aged with occupations, of parents and young people fighting to protect their families from death and mutilation. And Belarus is ripe for UA to salami slice a second front for Russia with a leader in waiting who won the last election.
Longer term NATO and China cannot allow Moscow to succeed nor the war drag on. Firstly every neighbour of a powerful autocratic state is growing convinced they need nuclear weapons to avoid UA’s fate. And secondly Russian state power has shown itself too weak to hold its empire together raising the likelihood of fracture and nuclear armed anarchy.
China and the US are clearly working together sending the same message. Russia should withdraw and concentrate on improving governance, instituting the rule of law, and raising the living standards of its people.
Please note that the Hungarian name is Matyas (Rákosi Mátyás) which is equivalent to Matthias, rather than MatyOs. Thank you again for writing so clearly about this conflict.
I don't think that the Kherson bridge should have been listed among "targets in Russia" that Ukraine has struck. The attack happened on the Ukrainian side of the Kerch strait, so if anything there is a strong argument to be made that it was on Ukrainian territory.
Another great outing from Perun on YT about this exact subject today as well
Good article. Missing word: “.. how Communists took over power IN vulnerable countries with weak political institutions.”