Quick sidebar
Before I get onto the real focus of this blog entry, I’d like to say that I’m pretty happy that we are out of Afghanistan right now. I do not want to relitigate it at all, you can do your comments if you want, but this helps us be able to focus on Europe and the Far East.
Who decides when the war in Ukraine is over?
I’ve read multiple comments and I’ve heard multiple people on TV say some form of “Russia (or Putin) can’t be allowed to win in Ukraine.” Ukraine and Russia are the only ones that can really stop the war. More specifically, only Ukraine can decide if a peace deal with Russia is acceptable if there are to be any concessions to Russia (as outlined in this WP article). So, while I share the sentiment that “Russia cannot be allowed to win”, that is not something any outsiders are really empowered to decide.
What Ukraine seemed to have been negotiating toward was a return of all seized territory and security assurances in exchange for not becoming part of NATO. That is some form of possible best outcome that Russia would never accept as of today. For some other solutions, search “settlement in Ukraine is not appeasement” which requires Russia be trusted to not turn around and stomp on Ukraine’s head from some newly acquired territory. Especially now Ukraine and the rest of the world has the seen in detail the depravity and extent of Russia’s terror campaign.
So, it is reasonable to believe that this war is not close to being over barring an implosion of the Russia’s assault (fingers crossed). Oh, then, there’s the whole idea of repatriating Ukrainians taken to Russia and the rest of Europe.
In short, we can decide which side we support and how much we try to help. I know I should not have to say it, but in case TFG happens to be reading this, Ukraine is the good side here. The vast majority of the world gets it.
What does a Russian loss look like? Is Russia not winning enough?
Arguably, Russia has already suffered a defeat. At a minimum, NATO is likely to grow larger and stronger (welcome Finland and Sweden), the Russian armed forces have already experienced heavy losses, and Russia as a military power is already diminished in reputation and capability. The Russian economy will shrink, they are defaulting on their debt right now, and no amount of oil and gas sales will reverse that overnight. Plus, there is at least a partial brain drain occurring. Sure, the Ruble has rebounded, but through the things like high interest rates and other manipulations, so will that last and how much does it really matter? Does anyone really think that Russia could take on NATO at this point?
From an emotional perspective, whether you call it war crimes or genocide, Russia’s macro- and micro-level conduct of the war has been evil on steroids. Suppose Russia were actually succeeding, does anyone think there is any number of Ukranian deaths or atrocities Putin would deem excessive? So, it is at least a functional genocide because it is just a wanton disregard for human life of any kind.
It feels impossible that any loss by Russia will be equal to the damage they have already done. The Ukrainians are never getting their children and loved ones back. Worse, for multiple reasons, it seems an unreasonable expectation that Putin will be replaced in the near future, as much as that seems like a necessary step at some point.
So, Ukraine’s goal of getting Russia out of Ukraine and guaranteeing the future security of Ukraine is obviously a repudiation of Russia’s goals. That is Russia not winning. It is a loss, just not one equal to what pain and suffering Putin and Russian are delivering to Ukraine.
Sure, a settlement with Russia that gives them something to stop the violence and was actually able to guarantee a secure future for Ukraine might not be “appeasement” if you interpret “appeasement” as a “compromise that avoids even more suffering.” It may come to that at some point, but, Lord, I hope it really is about cutting off the killing and not some guise of allowing Putin to save face.
If you’re making the settlement argument, remember Zelenskyy is begging the rest of the world almost every day to help stop the suffering. Ukraine has little reason to believe that Putin has any intention of stopping killing and dismembering Ukrainians. So, if you want to make that argument, you probably need to start directing it to Moscow.
What if giving Ukraine material support is not enough?
On any given day, you can read a combination of “give Ukraine everything it needs” or “Ukraine needs more offensive weapons”, but we cannot give them various airplanes, tanks, or missile systems because they require too much training or maintenance. In general, the argument about the feasibility of providing various weapons rings true to me. At least, more offensive and sophisticated weapons are clearly beginning to flow in (some tanks, missile systems, better and more lethal drones). These can add to the lethality of the Ukrainian forces.
For a number of reasons documented as discussed on DailyKos, the Russian military has to date been poor at doing anything other than bomb civilian targets and commit war crimes against the civilian population. While the combination of Ukrainian military’s effectiveness and Russia’s incompetence is a lot, it is not a guarantee until things are over. What happens if Russia actually pulls it together or simply escalates their attacks on civilian targets from remote positions? Especially if those are chemical attacks (apparently Russia continues to use cluster bombs on civilians). When is it too much mass murder?
To me, Russia’s behavior crossed the point where it is justified for other nations to come out even more aggressively to their defense (which is happening). As many will be quick to point out, the real reason that we are not likely to be there on the ground is that Russia is a nuclear power and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a real thing. I can fully see that US troops on Russian soil would likely be viewed as an existential threat to Russia, but I think Putin understands MAD is a two-way street. Putin also seems completely comfortable erasing 44 million Ukrainians and I do not think that we can stand by for that. Russia’s behavior has demonstrated that we should expect Russia to escalate the terror component of the war unless it just runs out of capacity to do it.
I’m not policy expert or a military expert, but ...
Ukraine has done insanely well so far. Many nations have upped their contributions of more aggressive weaponry in the last week in the face of Russia’s continuing war crimes. Military experts frequently push the concept that Ukraine needs better arms now (General McCaffrey anyone?). I am also convinced that our support is not happening fast enough to prevent Russia from causing many more civilian deaths and continuing to add to the heavy destruction of infrastructure in Ukraine. At the same time, it is does not look like Russia can take Ukraine by a long shot.
I figure behind the curtains, the US and other countries are messaging Putin that the invasion will never be allowed to succeed in the end. If that is the case, then I would like more public clarity from Biden and the administration about where this could be headed. For instance, is NATO providing anti-air and missile defense of Lviv going to start WW III? It is weak to cede Russia the ability to bomb civilians with impunity in Ukraine because they bully and threaten us with MAD. (I get it Volodymry).
We live in a dangerous world and Putin has done a lot to keep it that way, so I would rather not pretend there this will magically resolve itself, especially anytime soon. Especially since we are not the ones who will decide it is over.
In the end, “if Russia can’t be allowed to win in Ukraine” does not have a simple answer. It feels our position is a bit too much Realpolitik for my taste. In no way should NATO or the US be in the business of destroying Russia, but we may at some point we may have to be open to doing more than just arming Ukraine to make it secure.
