War, what is it good for?

[Octavious]

All seems to be going rather well. Kiev has been successful convinced that accepting peace rather than retaking Ukraine is the way forward. Now we just have to worry about Russia.

Trump in that regard has been both treating Russia with the respect they need whilst also cranking up the pressure. When Trump hints that he could devastate the Russian economy it carries a tad more weight than with most presidents, as he has already demonstrated he is very willing to take short term economic hits to achieve long-term goals. Poland's request for nuclear weapons is also very timely, as Trump can happily tell them to sod off as a gesture of good will to Russia.

How successful the negotiations we be remain to be seen, but hopefully the ridiculous notion that the US has abandoned Ukraine can now be put to bed.

[Klaus klauts]

I hope that you are right, but I am unfortunately very certain, that you are not.

But like you already said: We will see, and can do nothing else about it, then wait.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm open minded to the idea that peace might be achieved soon.

I remain concerned that the US' efforts to break Ukraine's bargaining position were unnecessary and will result in a less favourable resolution for the Ukrainians (and a boon for the invading Russians). I'm highly skeptical that hyper-authoritarian Russia actually needs a PR victory in order to wrap up their war of aggression - they can spin it any way they like.

Ukraine was never going to get its territory back, but are we progressing towards a "peace" that basically just forces them to end the conflict with no real security guarantees? That might look like peace for a while, but it leaves open the door to much more conflict in my lifetime - especially given how thoroughly NATO has imploded in recent months and how belatedly the EU has actually done anything on defense (they're easily a decade behind the ball - truly shameful).

Russia just won another war of territorial expansion. Have the costs in Ukraine been high enough to deter their ambitions?

Through all of this, the real losers have been the Ukrainians, and the secondary losers has been NATO and the Western alliance more generally.

At this point it's a wait-and-see, but I expect my bar for "success" is different than Oct's.

[Octavious]

Zaporizhzhia and Kherson
At this point it's a wait-and-see, but I expect my bar for "success" is different than Oct's

A lasting peace and 100,000s of people not being killed or wounded every year? What other bar could there possibly be?

If your bar includes Russia retreating from the Donbas and Crimea, that's very obviously not going to happen. If it includes Russia paying billions in reparations, that's not going to happen either. Zaporizhzhia and Kherson there's a bit more wriggle room.

Ukraine won't be joining NATO and the chances of the Yanks promising to go to war against Russia if Ukraine are attacked is extremely small. There will be no sizable US force deployed in Ukraine. There will likely be a small European (and possibly African Union) peacekeeping force deployed to observe and potentially enforce no fly zones. Ideally this will be under a UN mandate. It will be small both because the Russians will demand it but mostly because finding willing Europeans with the ability to commit serious numbers will be tricky. We'll then see how serious the EU is when they decide if and when Ukraine will be allowed to join. I'd like think yes and soon, but my suspicion is it will turn into maybe and not for a long time. Suddenly following rules and procedures will become extremely important again, and Ukraine are sadly not yet meeting the bar. Damned unfortunate, but nothing we can do, dontcha know? The economic realities mean we just can't afford to bend the rules, as much as we'd really really love to (Gallic shrugs all round, bof etc etc)

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Today it is Oct who has the reading problem - I pretty clearly said Ukraine won't get its land back (nor do I think that's a reasonable war aim at this point).

I don't think that Russia should get a veto over whether foreign forces station themselves in Ukraine. If they don't like foreign armies bolstering their neighbours, they should probably stop invading their neighbours. That's a red line we either fight over now, or later when they're back attacking Ukraine, Moldova, etc.

But I agree that Ukraine won't get NATO status, nor should they. Article V is already at the breaking point - including yet more members who obviously won't be defended would make a farce of the whole thing. I agree they likely won't get EU membership either - if that grouping means anything, it should probably be expelling members that are no longer democracies rather than adding very fragile and corrupt members.

[Octavious]

Today it is Oct who has the reading problem - I pretty clearly said Ukraine won't get its land back (nor do I think that's a reasonable war aim at this point).

I am more optimistic. I suspect that the Donbas and Crimea are gone for ever, but there is some flexibility in where borders are drawn. Ukraine surrendering all claims to the entirety of the Donbas may earn a return of some other territory more inclined to be hostile to Russia, and there is plenty of room for long-term negotiations regarding the future of the rest of it (especially when Putin is no more)

I don't think that Russia should get a veto over whether foreign forces station themselves in Ukraine.

A veto, no, but they should get a say and it's important to give the impression that they're being listened to.

But I agree that Ukraine won't get NATO status, nor should they.

You see, this is one of the things I've struggled most with when trying to understand your point of view. What is the fundamental difference between Ukraine being covered by Article 5 and Ukraine being given a US security guarantee? In my mind they amount more or less to the same thing, and yet you see the wisdom in not giving one but you're disappointed they're not getting the other?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I guess I just view the situation we're in now as one of the worst-possible outcomes. Since you're *very* defensive on all things Trump, I'll emphasize that the current situation reflects a decade+ of strategic mistakes from Obama, Biden, and the EU as well.

If Ukraine had been more robustly supported earlier in the war, especially by a credible conventional European force (and a more effortful sanctions effort against Russia), then there might have been a meaningful non-nuclear deterrent against Russian aggression.

Instead, we're coming to "peace" with a totally broken Ukraine and a Russian military that, while in some ways devastated, may in fact be more resilient and combat-ready than it was before the invasion.

The only options for deterrence against future Russian aggression at this point are basically (i) NATO-like commitments we're not actually ready to honour or (ii) meagre conventional forces in Ukraine that serve as haphazard nuclear tripwires. Both are bad options, but only the second one is at least kinda realistic (though it might not happen either). Doing neither would be an invitation for further Russian encroachment, which also brings unacceptable risks.

It's an extremely dangerous outcome and one that will persist so long as Russia has expansionist designs and a functioning army and economy. Ukraine and the West have lost the war in the sense that Russia is no less able to menace or even annex its neighbours.

[Octavious]

I guess I just view the situation we're in now as one of the worst-possible outcomes. Since you're *very* defensive on all things Trump, I'll emphasize that the current situation reflects a decade+ of strategic mistakes from Obama, Biden, and the EU as well.

I'm really not. It's just that in the realm of foreign defence policy my views and Trump's views seem to match quite strongly. In trade policy I am more curious than anything else, and am quite interested in seeing the experiment play out. I fully understand that from the Canadian perspective the experiment is rather unpleasant and would be very much against it if I was sat in your shoes.

If Ukraine had been more robustly supported earlier in the war, especially by a credible conventional European force (and a more effortful sanctions effort against Russia), then there might have been a meaningful non-nuclear deterrent against Russian aggression.

We are in agreement.

Instead, we're coming to "peace" with a totally broken Ukraine and a Russian military that, while in some ways devastated, may in fact be more resilient and combat-ready than it was before the invasion.

I would say that they are now the two most capable armies on the planet, with the Yanks and probably the Chinese (you can never be 100% sure how good their training actually is) probably not too far off. The Russian navy is broken, no idea about the respective air forces, but I'm guessing Ukraine's isn't awesome.

The only options for deterrence against future Russian aggression at this point are basically (i) NATO-like commitments we're not actually ready to honour or (ii) meagre conventional forces in Ukraine that serve as haphazard nuclear tripwires. Both are bad options, but only the second one is at least kinda realistic (though it might not happen either). Doing neither would be an invitation for further Russian encroachment, which also brings unacceptable risks.

If the Yanks make a commitment they would honour it. If they were otherwise inclined, if they had no interest in honouring their agreements, they wouldn't be so reluctant to make them in the first place. What the Yanks will do is inject doubt. There will be a lot of American civilians in Ukraine and a lot of American security forces to protect them, and they will strongly hint that they are very much inclined to protect their interests. Add to that the hundreds of thousands of Ukraine's first rate veteran soldiers, recently built shiny new defences, and with a bit of luck a European enforced no fly zone and let's say a 20,000 odd multinational peacekeeping force, and you have a lot of reasons for Putin not to invade. Especially if he can say he's "won" because that makes it a lot harder for him to change his mind and say there was actually a lot more to do after all.

The Russian people are very tired of war and their patience is not infinite

[Octavious]

In terms of who provides the peacekeepers... My guess is that Turkey will be encouraged to be a major player, along with the African Union, maybe India, Saudi Arabia... As long as the usual suspects (Britain, France et al) make up less than half I can see the Russians agreeing to both it and a no fly zone over half of pre-invasion Ukraine.

All guesswork, of course. It may well be totally different.

[Jamiet99uk]

If the Yanks make a commitment they would honour it. If they were otherwise inclined, if they had no interest in honouring their agreements, they wouldn't be so reluctant to make them in the first place.

This is manifestly untrue since Trump has already effectively torn up the Budapest memorandum, a commitment made by the Yanks to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If the Yanks make a commitment they would honour it. If they were otherwise inclined, if they had no interest in honouring their agreements, they wouldn't be so reluctant to make them in the first place.

This is manifestly untrue since Trump has already effectively torn up the Budapest memorandum, a commitment made by the Yanks to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Arguably Obama did that when Crimea got gobbled and basically nothing was done about it.

[Jamiet99uk]

If the Yanks make a commitment they would honour it. If they were otherwise inclined, if they had no interest in honouring their agreements, they wouldn't be so reluctant to make them in the first place.

This is manifestly untrue since Trump has already effectively torn up the Budapest memorandum, a commitment made by the Yanks to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Arguably Obama did that when Crimea got gobbled and basically nothing was done about it.

America doesn't keep its promises.

[Octavious]

If the Yanks make a commitment they would honour it. If they were otherwise inclined, if they had no interest in honouring their agreements, they wouldn't be so reluctant to make them in the first place.

This is manifestly untrue since Trump has already effectively torn up the Budapest memorandum, a commitment made by the Yanks to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Arguably Obama did that when Crimea got gobbled and basically nothing was done about it.

Regardless of which President you'd prefer to blame, the Budapest Memorandum contained no such commitment. I suggest that it may be worth having a read of the thing.

[Jamiet99uk]

That's fair comment Octavious. Technically the only country which has directly breached their commitments under the Budapest Memorandum is Russia. Russia violated it very directly in 2014 when it invaded the Crimean penunsula.

America could be criticised for not doing enough in response to Russia (both in 2014 and subsequently), but that isn't quite the same as I alleged, and I stand corrected.

[Octavious]

Yeah, the Budapest Memorandum is a nasty little document when you think about it. If you are feeling charitable you could argue that, because it was put in place when Russia was voluntarily retreating from other parts of the world, the idea that it would be the one doing the invading genuinely didn't occur to them. But I suspect that it was more of a case that the Yanks (in striking parallels to how they're acting now) simply refused to sign a document that would commit them to fighting Russia if they invaded Ukraine.

[Jamiet99uk]

"Nasty" in what sense?

[Octavious]

As you observed, in the sense that it gives the impression of providing security without actually doing so. It encouraged Ukraine to give up the one thing that would have kept their safety guaranteed. I consider that nasty.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Saw these Ipsos polling results this morning and thought they were interesting.





The Economist article these figures are from suggests that Zelensky's popularity has surged since the Trump meeting. Maybe Trump ultimately did him a favour lol.

For all the "dictator" talk re: Zelensky, it seems a strong majority of Ukrainians don't want an election until the war is over.

[Octavious]

The Economist article these figures are from suggests that Zelensky's popularity has surged since the Trump meeting. Maybe Trump ultimately did him a favour lol.

Well, yes. As I said at the time

I very much doubt that this public falling out is much more than an effort by both sides to portray themselves as tough fighters before they end up signing up to a deal that their supporters will find disappointing.

Zelensky wasn't humiliated. His refusal to back down seemed to play well enough in Ukraine.

But yes, interesting polling. It does seem to imply that a lot of the Ukrainian people have an unrealistic view of how the war is going (not at all surprising after years of wartime propaganda) and will be extremely disappointed by the ultimate outcome

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Of course, what we're not seeing is where Putin and/or ordinary Russians stand on these issues. I suspect they're holding out for some improbable outcomes as well.

Peace may still be a ways away if the two sides have irreconcilable views on key issues.