|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Apr 22, 2022 19:11:08 GMT -8
From "Foreign Affairs" magazine. What Does the West Want in Ukraine? By Richard Haass, April 22, 2022Some excerpts: " Vladimir Putin launched his war against Ukraine with expansive aims that, if achieved, would have essentially ended that country’s existence as a sovereign state. Faced with costly military setbacks, the Russian president has since defined success down, refocusing the Russian military operation on consolidating its hold in Ukraine’s east and south.
Curiously, Western aims in Ukraine have been far less clear. Almost all the debate over what to do has focused on means: on the quantity and quality of military aid to provide the country, on the wisdom of establishing a no-fly zone over Ukrainian airspace, on the extent of economic sanctions on Russia. Little has been said about what either side would have to concede in order to end the war. Also left unsaid is whether an end to the conflict would need to be formalized in a treaty signed by Russia and Ukraine or simply accepted as a reality.
Answering the question of how this war should end is vital as the struggle with Russia enters a critical moment, with a large battle looming." THREE FUTURES
" It is impossible to know if the Russian military will be able to realize its ambitions of asserting greater control in the Donbas region and establishing a land bridge to Crimea—and, if it is able to, whether Putin will again revise his war aims, in this case upward. What is almost certain is that no legitimate Ukrainian government would formally accept an outcome so favorable to Russia... On this score, the West should continue to provide support to Ukraine, to prevent Putin’s aggression from succeeding in Ukraine and from setting a dangerous precedent that would constitute a challenge to order everywhere." " One alternative to a scenario favoring Russia would be a stalemate. Things would stand more or less where they did before the invasion... This outcome could be acceptable to Ukraine... And in principle, Putin, too, might support such an outcome, judging that there was little to gain from continuing the fight... If such a consensus emerged, it would be one worth supporting... But it seems overly optimistic to imagine that a military stalemate would pave the way for a diplomatic settlement. Putin would be hard-pressed to make a plausible case that such a muddied result justified the military, diplomatic, and economic costs of his war." " A third future would be defined by Ukrainian military success... In theory, this would be an ideal outcome for Ukraine... In practice, however, things would be more complicated... the country would still be vulnerable to missile and artillery attacks emanating from Russia, to say nothing of cyberattacks and political interference. Even more important, it is near impossible to imagine Putin accepting such an outcome, since it would surely threaten his political survival, and possibly even his physical survival. In desperation, he might try to widen the war through cyberattacks or attacks on one or more NATO countries." HISTORY’S ADVICE" As the United States contemplates its strategy for Ukraine, it is useful to keep in mind two lessons of the Cold War. The first was to avoid direct armed conflict with the Soviet Union unless vital U.S. interests were threatened. The second was to accept less than optimal outcomes so as to avoid threatening vital Soviet interests, something that could all too easily lead to war." " The first lesson of the Cold War is reflected in existing Western policy toward Ukraine. From the outset of the crisis, the United States made it clear that it would not place boots on the ground or establish a no-fly zone, since doing so could bring U.S. and Russian forces into direct contact and raise the risk of escalation..." " As for the second lesson, the United States’ and NATO’s decision to pursue their aims through limited means has worked to a considerable extent. That choice has not prevented Russia from destroying Ukraine’s civilian centers, but the battle between the armed forces of the two countries has favored Ukraine. The question now is whether the West should embrace limited ends, eschewing military efforts to oust Russia from all of Ukraine or demanding regime change in Moscow as a condition of stopping the war." " The conclusion is clear: the United States and its NATO partners should consult with one another and with Ukraine over the aims of the war. The United States and NATO also need to refine their plans for deterring and responding to any Russian attacks on other countries or any Russian use of weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, Western success will be highly unlikely to involve a peace treaty, a true end to the conflict, or regime change in Russia." |
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Apr 22, 2022 19:54:11 GMT -8
Going forward, there are a lot of "what if's". What if Marine Le Pen wins in France? She's reported to be a fan of Trump and Putin. Her ascendency to the presidency of France could be a real game changer for the United States and its allies and partners, who so far have hung together.
Putin operates as the Lone Ranger sans Tonto, while Biden is the sheriff who heads up the posse. What if some of the other posse members decide to ride off in their own directions?
The one what if that's not a what if is the willingness of the Ukrainian people to resist a hostile takeover by the Russians. They're as tough as a cheap steak and have more than held their own on the battlefield. They've used the weapons supplied by us and our allies and partners to great effect and have turned a lot of Russian armor into scrap metal.
So, what the West wants and what the West will settle for will be decided on the battlefield. But what the Ukrainians want or will settle for may be something else again. It's their country and to the degree possible it should be their choice. They're willing to fight and we should be willing to support them, even at some risk to ourselves.
Bush has played his hand cautiously and has ramped up our support of Ukraine with the types of weapons that can wreak havoc on the Russian military. We must continue to give them what they need, sometimes even before they realize they need it. In today's war fast mobile weapons can seek out and destroy slow moving or fixed weapons, so whatever we give them should be portable and fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by gainsborough on Apr 23, 2022 6:31:00 GMT -8
Bush?
|
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Apr 23, 2022 8:38:39 GMT -8
Senior Citizen error. My bad....
|
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Apr 23, 2022 9:06:56 GMT -8
So, what the West wants and what the West will settle for will be decided on the battlefield. But what the Ukrainians want or will settle for may be something else again. It's their country and to the degree possible it should be their choice. They're willing to fight and we should be willing to support them, even at some risk to ourselves. You're right, of course. In a perfect world, Ukraine would be fully in charge of their fate. But being dependent on weapons from the West means they're also dependent on "what the West wants". In that eventuality, a "back to 2021" stalemate may be the most acceptable outcome to all sides; and the one real opportunity to, if not end the fighting altogether, reduce it to the equivalent of border skirmishes. |
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Apr 23, 2022 11:33:07 GMT -8
On the other hand, I think we all get the sense that Putin will not stop at Ukraine or Donbas specifically. We have a very hungry caterpillar over there who'll eat everything in his path with no signs of eventually becoming a beautiful butterfly.
I feel like that needs to be part of the equation here.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Apr 23, 2022 14:37:03 GMT -8
THREE FUTURES
" It is impossible to know if the Russian military will be able to realize its ambitions of asserting greater control in the Donbas region and establishing a land bridge to Crimea—and, if it is able to, whether Putin will again revise his war aims, in this case upward. What is almost certain is that no legitimate Ukrainian government would formally accept an outcome so favorable to Russia... On this score, the West should continue to provide support to Ukraine, to prevent Putin’s aggression from succeeding in Ukraine and from setting a dangerous precedent that would constitute a challenge to order everywhere." " One alternative to a scenario favoring Russia would be a stalemate. Things would stand more or less where they did before the invasion... This outcome could be acceptable to Ukraine... And in principle, Putin, too, might support such an outcome, judging that there was little to gain from continuing the fight... If such a consensus emerged, it would be one worth supporting... But it seems overly optimistic to imagine that a military stalemate would pave the way for a diplomatic settlement. Putin would be hard-pressed to make a plausible case that such a muddied result justified the military, diplomatic, and economic costs of his war." " A third future would be defined by Ukrainian military success... In theory, this would be an ideal outcome for Ukraine... In practice, however, things would be more complicated... the country would still be vulnerable to missile and artillery attacks emanating from Russia, to say nothing of cyberattacks and political interference. Even more important, it is near impossible to imagine Putin accepting such an outcome, since it would surely threaten his political survival, and possibly even his physical survival. In desperation, he might try to widen the war through cyberattacks or attacks on one or more NATO countries." The problem with options 2 and 3, is that I don't think Putin thinks he can personally survive either of them. He needs some kind of a win. He may be able to convince the public that something is a win, but I am not sure the military will put up with squandering so much of their assets. At this point, I think Putin may see this as a struggle for his survival. Or alternatively he may see this as his divine mission to restore Russia to it's rightful place in the world. I am not sure reasonable outcomes are reasonable for Putin. What are some historical parallels? - Vietnam
- Both the US and Russia in Afghanistan
These went on for years, in spite of the knowledge that success was unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Apr 23, 2022 15:06:35 GMT -8
So, what the West wants and what the West will settle for will be decided on the battlefield. But what the Ukrainians want or will settle for may be something else again. It's their country and to the degree possible it should be their choice. They're willing to fight and we should be willing to support them, even at some risk to ourselves. You're right, of course. In a perfect world, Ukraine would be fully in charge of their fate. But being dependent on weapons from the West means they're also dependent on "what the West wants". In that eventuality, a "back to 2021" stalemate may be the most acceptable outcome to all sides; and the one real opportunity to, if not end the fighting altogether, reduce it to the equivalent of border skirmishes. A "stalemate" that gives Putin more Ukrainian territory and continues the bleeding is not an acceptable outcome. This is the time for America and its partners and allies to take a stand and let Putin know that we're willing and able to continue supplying the Ukrainian forces with the weapons and tactical support that it takes to further degrade his capability to continue his war. The Russian's have a "Z", so we should have a "V", which would stand for a victory for the Ukrainian people. As long as they're willing to fight we should be willing to send them better and more lethal boxing gloves. |
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on Apr 23, 2022 17:09:17 GMT -8
B2B: Little has been said about what either side would have to concede in order to end the war.
Little has been said publicly about a war ending settlement. Those are sensitive negotiations between Zelensky and Putin. So far it appears Putin is not willing to negotiate at all. Most likely any concessions he makes will go unspoken. His image could not risk concessions. But, I'm confident that many discussions have been held between Zelensky and allies about what he would concede to end hostilities.
B2B: In that eventuality, a "back to 2021" stalemate may be the most acceptable outcome to all sides; and the one real opportunity to, if not end the fighting altogether, reduce it to the equivalent of border skirmishes.
I agree. I think that's the best we could hope for. Somehow it would have to be structured to make it appear that Putin got what he wanted. I don't think any other solution would be acceptable to him. We're dealing with a trumpian mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Apr 23, 2022 19:47:53 GMT -8
B2B: Little has been said about what either side would have to concede in order to end the war. Little has been said publicly about a war ending settlement. Those are sensitive negotiations between Zelensky and Putin. So far it appears Putin is not willing to negotiate at all. Most likely any concessions he makes will go unspoken. His image could not risk concessions. But, I'm confident that many discussions have been held between Zelensky and allies about what he would concede to end hostilities. B2B: In that eventuality, a "back to 2021" stalemate may be the most acceptable outcome to all sides; and the one real opportunity to, if not end the fighting altogether, reduce it to the equivalent of border skirmishes. I agree. I think that's the best we could hope for. Somehow it would have to be structured to make it appear that Putin got what he wanted. I don't think any other solution would be acceptable to him. We're dealing with a trumpian mind. I just can't envision Putin accepting any deal that would result in a return to the status quo. During the build-up to his invasion there was talk of "off ramps", meaning ways of allowing him to save face without seeming to back down. He didn't take any of them. I think Putin is a megalomaniac, who over time has become obsessed with his place in history. He was affected by collapse of the Soviet Union and wants to be known and remembered as another transformational leader like Catherine the Great, who in her time turned Russia into a great power in Europe and expanded its borders, including colonizing Alaska. I really don't see giving Putin any kind of a win. I think with our help and the help of our partners and allies, we can continue to upgrade the military capabilities of the Ukrainians, who are willing warriors. It's their country and after listening to our counsel, they should then be encouraged to make their own decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Apr 24, 2022 9:45:03 GMT -8
I just can't envision Putin accepting any deal that would result in a return to the status quo. During the build-up to his invasion there was talk of "off ramps", meaning ways of allowing him to save face without seeming to back down. He didn't take any of them. I think Putin is a megalomaniac, who over time has become obsessed with his place in history. He was affected by collapse of the Soviet Union and wants to be known and remembered as another transformational leader like Catherine the Great, who in her time turned Russia into a great power in Europe and expanded its borders, including colonizing Alaska. I really don't see giving Putin any kind of a win. I think with our help and the help of our partners and allies, we can continue to upgrade the military capabilities of the Ukrainians, who are willing warriors. It's their country and after listening to our counsel, they should then be encouraged to make their own decisions. What's the alternative to giving Putin a "win"? While I doubt he can win this war in any meaningful way, he has the ability to continue for a long time wreaking havoc on the civilians, and there is no corresponding attacks on Russian cities. At the same time the Ukrainian economy is a disaster. Meanwhile I don't think he can settle for the status quo. Negotiations usually mean both sides have to eat some shit sandwiches. |
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Apr 24, 2022 12:28:34 GMT -8
I just can't envision Putin accepting any deal that would result in a return to the status quo. During the build-up to his invasion there was talk of "off ramps", meaning ways of allowing him to save face without seeming to back down. He didn't take any of them. I think Putin is a megalomaniac, who over time has become obsessed with his place in history. He was affected by collapse of the Soviet Union and wants to be known and remembered as another transformational leader like Catherine the Great, who in her time turned Russia into a great power in Europe and expanded its borders, including colonizing Alaska. I really don't see giving Putin any kind of a win. I think with our help and the help of our partners and allies, we can continue to upgrade the military capabilities of the Ukrainians, who are willing warriors. It's their country and after listening to our counsel, they should then be encouraged to make their own decisions. What's the alternative to giving Putin a "win"? While I doubt he can win this war in any meaningful way, he has the ability to continue for a long time wreaking havoc on the civilians, and there is no corresponding attacks on Russian cities. At the same time the Ukrainian economy is a disaster. Meanwhile I don't think he can settle for the status quo. Negotiations usually mean both sides have to eat some shit sandwiches. Maybe it's time to look for some other pigs to put some lipstick on? I can't imagine Ukraine accepting a Russian controlled corridor that would close off Ukrainian access to the Black Sea. And I can't imagine Putin pulling his forces pulling back into the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. So, what other options are available? I don't know if either side has a knock-out punch? Putin does have tactical nuclear weapons but using them would further isolate Russia from a lot of the rest of the world. So, over the near to intermediate term I envision a series of body blows delivered by each side. My hope is that the weapons systems supplied to the Ukrainians will allow them to blunt the point of the Russian spear, while at the same time degrading their capabilities. And who knows, maybe something will happen that will motivate both sides to seek alternatives to continuing to throw punches? |
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Apr 24, 2022 14:18:02 GMT -8
It's quite possible none of the three alternatives would be acceptable to all parties.
Ukraine almost certainly wouldn't accept a Russian victory, unless forced to do so by overwhelming losses. Since a Russian victory is anathema to Europe as well, it seems like Ukraine will have all the support needed to keep fighting an prevent this eventuality. The big unknowns are whether Putin will resort to WMD to tip the odds in his favor, and how Europe and the rest of the world would respond to that.
While Marine Le Pen appears to be going down to defeat in the French presidential election, I don't think a victory for her would have changed this equation, certainly not for NATO or the European Union, even if France's official opinion of the war were to change.
Putin almost certainly will not accept a Ukrainian victory, unless forced to do so, and maybe not even then. Again WMD are the wild card.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine may find returning to the pre-invasion status quo palatable BUT here is where the voices of other countries would speak loudest. Europe and the US could force Ukraine to accept a just (or unjust) peace just by reducing their support, in order to reduce the ferocity of the fighting, and avoid a years-long conflict. There would have to be a lot of delicate calculations in such a move, as it would be easy for Ukraine to paint such an outcome as a betrayal by the West.
The more I think about it, the more I think we're looking at a very prolonged war, unless sanctions and battlefield defeats ravage Russia so completely that Putin or his successor seeks a way out.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Apr 24, 2022 14:54:38 GMT -8
It's quite possible none of the three alternatives would be acceptable to all parties. Ukraine almost certainly wouldn't accept a Russian victory, unless forced to do so by overwhelming losses. Since a Russian victory is anathema to Europe as well, it seems like Ukraine will have all the support needed to keep fighting an prevent this eventuality. The big unknowns are whether Putin will resort to WMD to tip the odds in his favor, and how Europe and the rest of the world would respond to that. While Marine Le Pen appears to be going down to defeat in the French presidential election, I don't think a victory for her would have changed this equation, certainly not for NATO or the European Union, even if France's official opinion of the war were to change. Putin almost certainly will not accept a Ukrainian victory, unless forced to do so, and maybe not even then. Again WMD are the wild card. Neither Russia nor Ukraine may find returning to the pre-invasion status quo palatable BUT here is where the voices of other countries would speak loudest. Europe and the US could force Ukraine to accept a just (or unjust) peace just by reducing their support, in order to reduce the ferocity of the fighting, and avoid a years-long conflict. There would have to be a lot of delicate calculations in such a move, as it would be easy for Ukraine to paint such an outcome as a betrayal by the West. The more I think about it, the more I think we're looking at a very prolonged war, unless sanctions and battlefield defeats ravage Russia so completely that Putin or his successor seeks a way out. Sanctions are the wild card in Putin's game of thrones. As you're in the money business have you picked up any intel on any incremental and/or cumulative damage that they're inflicting on the Russian economy? I've read very little on their negative effects, but a bit more about how they can work around them. As to the war, Russia will probably continue to draw no distinction between civilians and combatants so property and people will continue to pay the price. I hope we're providing The Ukrainians with longer range weapons and real time intel so they can effectively strike at Russian formations before they move out. With satellites and drones concentrated fixed or slowly moving positions can be sitting ducks. One thing I've repeatedly read about the Russian military is that battle orders come from the top down and once issued can only be changed at the top. NCO's and junior officers can't quickly react to changing conditions on the ground. That should give the Ukrainian forces a significant advantage in the fog or war, or at least I hope so. To wrap this up, I agree with you that this war has legs, possibly long ones. |
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Apr 25, 2022 11:47:18 GMT -8
Sanctions are the wild card in Putin's game of thrones. As you're in the money business have you picked up any intel on any incremental and/or cumulative damage that they're inflicting on the Russian economy? I've read very little on their negative effects, but a bit more about how they can work around them. As to the war, Russia will probably continue to draw no distinction between civilians and combatants so property and people will continue to pay the price. I hope we're providing The Ukrainians with longer range weapons and real time intel so they can effectively strike at Russian formations before they move out. With satellites and drones concentrated fixed or slowly moving positions can be sitting ducks. One thing I've repeatedly read about the Russian military is that battle orders come from the top down and once issued can only be changed at the top. NCO's and junior officers can't quickly react to changing conditions on the ground. That should give the Ukrainian forces a significant advantage in the fog or war, or at least I hope so. To wrap this up, I agree with you that this war has legs, possibly long ones. In the news summary today, I posted something about an explosion at a critical part of the pipeline system that delivers gas to Europe. Was that done by Ukraine by long-range weapons or special forces? We don't know. However, if I were Putin, this would worry me a lot. Going directly after his cash cow puts a lot of things in Russia in jeopardy. |
|
