A very minor point about a fascinating and instructive piece. Although there was regime change in Italy in 1943, there were subsequent negotiations - Macmillan, Eisenhower and Alexander produced what are know as the short terms (which worked) then the Foreign office and Washington produced long terms which simply caused delay and confusion. Italy 1943 is a story indicating the complexity of getting allies to agree and those on the ground having a better grasp of what can be achieved - Macmillan and his American oppo flew into Brindisi (at no small risk as Italian naval vessels might have shot their plane down) to meet the Italians.
This piece strenghtens my feeling is the likelihood of the Ukraine war continuing for a very long time (albeit possibly with long ceasefires) is very high. It seems very doubtful that either side will win a decisive victory in the forseeable future. I can't see any prospect for a negotiated war ending cease fire between the two parties - only a temporary ones that 'freezes' for a long time. No Ukrainian government can willingly assent to large numbers of it's citizens living under Russian dictatorship/occupration and I can't blame them for having no confidence at all in Putin's willingness to honour a peace treaty if he thinks he can get good results resuming the fight.
Putin gives every sign of still desiring to conquer all of Ukraine, albeit he may settle for all of the 4 parts of Ukraine of which he has conquered less than half the population/economic base. But I can't see the Ukrainians agreeing to that. He also can't withdraw his forces back to their original border (2022 or 2014) because that would be political suicide. It's far bettter for him to keep fighting even if it costs horrendous amounts of blood and treasure in the long run.
I only see the chance for a cease fire when Putin exits the scene and someone whose ego is invested in this war takes over. The next ruler may decide it's better to cut losses and improved relationships with the West is better than being a junior partner or even client state of China.
Fascinating. How would LF characterise the end of the Vietnam war? Defeat and withdrawal of the US forces, negotiations that never really resolved the situation prior to the N Vietnam victory, leading to the transformation of the united Vietnam as a major Asian economy with trading links to the US now being courted by Putin?
The negotiations were about enabling the Americans to leave - and so succeeded - but also about stabilizing Vietnam - and so failed. I think as you say this is another example of the point that uneasy compromises produce less stable outcomes than decisive victories.
Which wars have ended by negotiation, as opposed to ended with a ceasefire, without one side obtaining a military dominance(at which point it is less a negotiation)?
By military dominance, I do not mean a victory, just the appearance of being in a superior position .
But in those circumstances it became clear that those looking to expel the colonial powers had a superior position. Had the colonial powers stayed, it would have been at high cost and the result would have been their military defeat. My phraseology was poor, putting it a better way, has there ever been a negotiated peace after fighting has started when the situation is balanced, neither side has an advantage?
Can’t think of any offhand (which doesn’t mean to say hasn’t happened). The traditional approach to warfare assumed that matters would be decided by a decisive battle and annihilation of the enemy army.
Thank you for the confirmation, my own interest is classical Greece, and even though there were peace treaties within the Peloponnesian war, they tended to occur after one of the protagonists had a significant setback, e.g. the disaster in Sicily.
A very minor point about a fascinating and instructive piece. Although there was regime change in Italy in 1943, there were subsequent negotiations - Macmillan, Eisenhower and Alexander produced what are know as the short terms (which worked) then the Foreign office and Washington produced long terms which simply caused delay and confusion. Italy 1943 is a story indicating the complexity of getting allies to agree and those on the ground having a better grasp of what can be achieved - Macmillan and his American oppo flew into Brindisi (at no small risk as Italian naval vessels might have shot their plane down) to meet the Italians.
Yes. Thanks for this.
This piece strenghtens my feeling is the likelihood of the Ukraine war continuing for a very long time (albeit possibly with long ceasefires) is very high. It seems very doubtful that either side will win a decisive victory in the forseeable future. I can't see any prospect for a negotiated war ending cease fire between the two parties - only a temporary ones that 'freezes' for a long time. No Ukrainian government can willingly assent to large numbers of it's citizens living under Russian dictatorship/occupration and I can't blame them for having no confidence at all in Putin's willingness to honour a peace treaty if he thinks he can get good results resuming the fight.
Putin gives every sign of still desiring to conquer all of Ukraine, albeit he may settle for all of the 4 parts of Ukraine of which he has conquered less than half the population/economic base. But I can't see the Ukrainians agreeing to that. He also can't withdraw his forces back to their original border (2022 or 2014) because that would be political suicide. It's far bettter for him to keep fighting even if it costs horrendous amounts of blood and treasure in the long run.
I only see the chance for a cease fire when Putin exits the scene and someone whose ego is invested in this war takes over. The next ruler may decide it's better to cut losses and improved relationships with the West is better than being a junior partner or even client state of China.
Fascinating. How would LF characterise the end of the Vietnam war? Defeat and withdrawal of the US forces, negotiations that never really resolved the situation prior to the N Vietnam victory, leading to the transformation of the united Vietnam as a major Asian economy with trading links to the US now being courted by Putin?
The negotiations were about enabling the Americans to leave - and so succeeded - but also about stabilizing Vietnam - and so failed. I think as you say this is another example of the point that uneasy compromises produce less stable outcomes than decisive victories.
Which wars have ended by negotiation, as opposed to ended with a ceasefire, without one side obtaining a military dominance(at which point it is less a negotiation)?
By military dominance, I do not mean a victory, just the appearance of being in a superior position .
Many colonial wars when it became apparent that the colonial power’s position was untenable. Wars in former Yugoslavia.
But in those circumstances it became clear that those looking to expel the colonial powers had a superior position. Had the colonial powers stayed, it would have been at high cost and the result would have been their military defeat. My phraseology was poor, putting it a better way, has there ever been a negotiated peace after fighting has started when the situation is balanced, neither side has an advantage?
Can’t think of any offhand (which doesn’t mean to say hasn’t happened). The traditional approach to warfare assumed that matters would be decided by a decisive battle and annihilation of the enemy army.
Thank you for the confirmation, my own interest is classical Greece, and even though there were peace treaties within the Peloponnesian war, they tended to occur after one of the protagonists had a significant setback, e.g. the disaster in Sicily.