Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling may be intended to alarm Western publics. But the course of the war has been shaped precisely by Western fear of escalation. In the frankest terms, Nato has not directly entered the war as a combatant because Ukraine’s victory is not considered worth open conflict with Russia. Yet at a more subtle level, the Biden Administration’s strategy for the war, throughout, has been to equip and train Ukrainian forces to a level where Kyiv can enter peace negotiations from a position of strength, having demonstrated to Moscow that the costs of prolonging the war are greater than the benefits of pursuing it to its bitter conclusion. This is more or less the same approach that the Obama Administration pursued with the Syrian war, where it failed. It is now over to Trump to obtain a different outcome.
Yet while the incoming Trump Administration has won a mandate to end the Ukraine war, whether it has the capacity to safely do so, let alone in a manner distinguishable from strategic defeat, is another question entirely. Following the costly failure of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive, intended to threaten Russia’s access to Crimea and enable Kyiv to enter peace negotiations able to dictate terms, the United States has had no workable plan for satisfactorily concluding the war. Trump’s incoming National Security advisor Michael Waltz, who warned this weekend that “we need to bring this to a responsible end. We need to restore deterrence and peace and get ahead of this escalation later rather than responding to it”, is entirely correct in his withering analysis of the Biden Administration. “‘As long as it takes’ is a slogan, not a strategy,” he wrote last year.
While the Biden Administration still gives lip service to Kyiv’s rhetoric of pursuing total victory, defined as a return to the country’s 1991 borders, in reality a humiliating Russian defeat represents a serious risk to the West, by pushing Putin towards nuclear escalation. That one of the war’s two great missed opportunities for peace talks — Ukraine’s successful Autumn 2022 Kharkiv offensive — also apparently saw Pentagon officials assess the odds of a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine as near even, highlights how finely balanced the calculations are. In the West’s current strategy, Ukraine must be strong enough to bring Moscow to the table but not so strong as to make Putin escalate the war beyond the point of no return; that would drag the United States into a direct conflict it does not want and Europe into one for which it is unprepared. Biden’s pained, years-long deliberations over weapons deliveries, each of which have so far kept Ukraine in the fight without delivering victory, are the product of this delicate calculus. So, too, is the muted European response to the apparent escalating Russian sabotage campaign on EU soil.
This being the case, Western and Ukrainian interests are fundamentally misaligned, as the eminent American diplomat Richard N. Haass, who is apparently running back-channel talks with Russia, recently observed in Foreign Affairs. For Haass, “instead of clinging to an infeasible definition of victory, Washington must grapple with the grim reality of the war and come to terms with a more plausible outcome.” To do so, the United States government — and here Haass means the outgoing Biden Administration, seen as more sympathetic to Ukrainian interests than its replacement — “must take the uncomfortable step of pushing Kyiv to negotiate with the Kremlin — and lay out a clear sense of how it should do so”. Yet the Haass plan, which revolves around an armistice on the current front lines and accepts Ukraine’s de facto loss of its territory currently occupied by Russia, may no longer be in America’s power to achieve.
Instead, the unfortunate dawning prospect may be that Ukraine will suffer both for its early success and for Biden’s earlier disinclination to push the country towards peace talks. When the 2022 invasion began, the United States worked on the planning assumption that Russia’s swift victory was more or less inevitable. The spirited Ukrainian defence, and the Russian failures of planning and capability that saw the initially fast-tempo advance bogged down and then forced to retreat from vast areas of the country, came as a surprise, forcing all parties to improvise plans for a longer and more costly war than anyone expected. Two major opportunities for a negotiated solution, at the war’s very beginning and then following the dramatic Kharkiv counteroffensive, were rejected by Kyiv, the latter against the Pentagon’s advice and the former in circumstances which historians will debate for many decades to come. Yet the war’s initial successes, and the promises of unlimited Western support, now seem distant. In allowing the Zelensky Administration to commit itself to maximalist terms of victory, the Biden Administration’s apparent support for Ukraine may have delivered a worse outcome for the country than pressure to have accepted a negotiated solution, even involving loss of territory, years ago.
As a Kyiv official recently told the I newspaper, “If we’re going to be forced into accepting where we were around two years ago, then it may have been better to have agreed this in 2022 and we would have saved so many lives on both sides.” Yet it is surely optimistic to assume that, following years of gruelling and costly warfare, Russia’s terms now will be as amenable for Kyiv as those which Ukrainian negotiators once toasted with champagne. While Russian officials suggest the 2022 negotiations may be a workable starting point for talks, the war’s dynamics have slowly shifted against Ukraine so starkly that Putin may hold out for a more decisive conclusion.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAn insightful article about the current reality for bringing the Ukraine war to a conclusion.
The most significant aspect of this war, for me as an observer, is the complete failure of Western attempts to economically isolate Russia and sanction it into submission. Instead, the Western sanctions have catalyzed a shift in the global balance of power away from American dominance. Many of Ukraine’s military gambits might have backfired, but the West harmed itself more with its initially complacent belief in its ability to bankrupt Russia.
The shift from US dominance was already happening. The Neocon gamble in Ukraine has accelerated it.
I think Trump understood the loss of dominance, hence his insistence on NATO members pulling their weight. His “Make America Great Again” means great for its people, and their living standards, not great as the world policeman, which was increasingly expensive.
The USA is entirely capable of doing very well by isolationism, behind tariff barriers. The age of globalisation is dying.
As I recall, James Goldsmith’s book “The Trap” warned of the dangers of globalisation.
The US won’t spend any less on defence than it does currently. It is just European members of NATO need to spend more.
That’s not going to fly with Europeans, when all they get out of the US proxy war in Ukraine is exploding energy prices and when the green madness ends up in deindustrialization.
As far as I am concerned, europe should instantly pull out of the war in Ukraine, resume a friendly partnership with Russia in all domains and end US influence in Europe as long as it is not beneficial.
Unfortunately I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Both, european politicians and large parts of the european populations, are too brainwashed by the legacy media to even consider that.
If Putin’s goal is to reestablish the USSR – and there is no clear indication that it isn’t – what do you do when he comes for the Baltic states?
The sanctions against Russia shouldn’t end if the war ends. They should remain in perpetuity. The point of NATO is to keep Russia down, and it should take that role seriously. Its members should be precluded from ever trading with Russia.
The point of NATO is to keep Russia down
Hardly. The point of NATO was an agreement between nations to come to the aid of each other against third party aggressors. During the Cold War they collectively acted as a deterrent to the USSR. Their aim was not to defeat it.
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t ‘keep Russia down’ and ‘act as a deterrent’ mean much the same thing?
I think it’s just you. Of course it depends on what Martin means, though I have a good idea.
The job of NATO was to contain Russia, which remains the case.
The point of NATO is to protect its members which this Ukraine fiasco has completely failed to do having pushed Russia much closer to China (the real threat) and Iran etc. And also given the Russian military hugely needed experience and skills.
We need to be bringing Russia on side.
The West had to try on the sanctions front for moral reasons. Indeed, it must continue to distance itself from Russia economically as far as possible, including severe penalties for its own sanctions evaders.
We have been in a multipolar world for a long time. America is still on top and will remain there due to its excellent economy.
I doubt that anyone thought sanctions would bankrupt Russia. After all, sanctions have hurt, but not bankrupted, multiple other countries. I disagree with maximalist analyses. For example, the Korean War didn’t result in the unconditional surrender of North Korea or China, but it very probably influenced communist thinking about which means they’d use to expand their orbit.
An excellent analysi.
However “Putin’s unknowable appetite for risk” is, in fact, reasonably well known. He tolerated the expansion of NATO to include Poland, (despite a broken assurance by NATO not to do so) but not beyond.
He did nothing about the 2014 CIA coup in Ukraine.
He abided by the Minsk Agreements only to find they were merely a facade to allow the weaponisation of Ukraine.
He then warned against Ukraine joining NATO but was ignored.
He then reacted with military means to take territory and degrade Ukrainian (and NATO) military capabilities.
He was pushed a long way…but no further. It is unlikely he will trust any “agreement” with the West, and will require Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, a size limit on Ukrainian military forces and probably all of the Donbas. Putin has no appetite for risk beyond that already tolerated.
It would be wise to accept this. The West gambled and lost. As Mearsheimer predicted, Ukraine has been led down the primrose path to destruction.
However it is unlikely that the “dealmaker” Trump will agree these terms. It is Trump’s appetite for risk which is unknown.
Putin may have “tolerated the expansion of NATO to include Poland”, but he personally facilitated the expansion of NATO to include Sweden and Finland.
Presumably he considered that a price worth paying.
No. He blundered into it. Just as he blundered into Ukraine in 2022 thinking it would be a pushover.
In any case, he never personally pays the price for any of this. The Russian people (and the Ukrainians) do. He doesn’t even care how much his own people suffer and lose.
I will say this once again – Poland is an independent country which has every right to choose how to defend itself. Having been colonised and invaded by Russia on multiple occasions, it would be a dereliction of duty by the Polish government not to have a defensive alliance against Russia. Read some actual history for a change and you might being to understand.
He can’t divert those two from the path of democracy and prosperity, but Ukraine he stood a chance
No he did not. It was a major blow.
Russia is not running a policy of necessary defence, but of imperial expansion. A more realistic reading is that Putin is determined to take full control over Ukraine, unless someone proves to him it is impossible.
He reacted to the Maidan by promoting separatist militias in Ujkraine – in effect gave up on political control of Kyiv and went for armed control over territory.
Neither side abided by the Minsk accords – which were anyway intended by the Russians to allow them to control Ukraine through the two Oblasts they controlled.
Ukrainian neutrality and maybe some territorial concessions would be a price worth paying in return for Ukraine’s freedom to decide its policies independently of Russia – join the EU, for instance. But Russia has no intention of allowing that, and any guarantees Russia could offer are worthless – like the gurantee for Ukraines territorial integrity Russia gave when Ukraine surrendered the nuclear weaponson its territory.
The really interesting question is what Putin will try to take once he has swallowed Ukraine. The Baltic states? Moldova? control over Poland? Finland? – and how much appetite for risk he will show there. I guess if people like you get what they want we shall find out.
“He reacted to the Maidan by promoting separatist militias in Ujkraine – in effect gave up on political control of Kyiv and went for armed control over territory.
Neither side abided by the Minsk accords – which were anyway intended by the Russians to allow them to control Ukraine through the two Oblasts they controlled.”
The two points quoted are excellent, Rasmus. They bear repetition and certainly require context.
To the former, the “separatist militias” you refer to were extant criminal gangs operating in the Donbas since at least the late-Soviet period and which, in independent Ukraine, were otherwise politically unaligned/disinterested or only nominally interested. They were local criminals who prospered from that holdover relationship spawned in the USSR – the profitable alliance of State Security forces and organized crime. In 2013-2014, that relationship changed in material fashion. Russia’s supply of military-grade kit, personnel and field coordination provided said gangs with the means and motive to expand their activities and ultimately prevented Ukraine from crushing the “insurrection” in the Donbas completely.
To the latter point, Poroshenko knew Minsk was a non-starter as it allowed the Kremlin proxy control (via ‘autonomous’ Luhansk and Donetsk) of the Ukrainian Parliament, and yet he consented with the intent of fortifying the Ukrainian defence against further Russian territory grabs (he’d already lost Crimea), a decision which, while providing Ukraine with the ability to resist the inevitable full and criminal invasion, would ultimately cost him the presidential election in 2019.
The West forced nothing on Ukraine that it wasn’t already seeking in its capacity as a sovereign nation looking to define its political orientation. The West forced nothing on Ukraine that Ukraine didn’t already know – four centuries of Russian invasion had taught them well – it knew it would need.
The Russian and Ukrainian word for Mearsheimer’s let’s call it ‘analysis’, (and perhaps the also the man), is маразм (marazm).
Excellent. Mearsheimer should stay home and go fishing or something. ‘Ukraine and the Empire of Capital’, 2018, by Yulia Yurchenko is a great read on Russia and Kleptocracies in the Ukraine.
What are you talking about? “Putin tolerated …..” – it’s none of his business what a neighbouring independent state does, just as its none of our business how he treats his people. If they are deluded into thinking that he is brilliant, let them live with the consequences. I’m a realist, but conceding any territory to an aggressive megalomaniac will only encourage him to take more. How far west should we ‘tolerate’ him taking before we say no?
Indeed, megalomaniacs should not be tolerated…the Neocons shouldn’t have been allowed to dictate Western policy…
He did nothing about the 2014 CIA coup in Ukraine.
Michael, you are idiot
A very sad business. But once again we see the West jamming itself into a no-win, very uncomfortable position. In many ways this comes as no surprise. Their history of confrontation and warfare has been abysmal, and despite the spin, a failure on all fronts leaving their so-called allies broken and forced into negotiations that give them only the bitter fruit of defeat.
What do you mean “no win”? The West must dedicate itself to bringing Russia down, and keeping it there. That must be its aim for the next century. Ukraine has done the West a favour by killing lots of Russians. That is in my view an entirely good thing. I would be happier if the West had “gone harder earlier”, but that was not to be. However, the West cannot make the mistake of admitting Russia back into the civilised world, and trading with it as if nothing had happened.
Just out of interest, why must “The West … dedicate itself to bringing Russia down, and keeping it there? And what exactly do you mean by that?
This is my take: Because Russia is hell-bent on returning to its status of a great power that controlled half of Europe and had to be kept out of the rest by force. We need to convince Russia – like Germany earlier – that it should stay within its borders and stop trying to conquer its neighbours. Or we will have to live in the shadow of an ever-expansionist Russian empire. Personally I would prefer to avoid that – as would the Ukrainians, Finns, and the Poles. What is your preference?
My preference is irrelevant. Your whole premise is based on an expansionist Russia. My view is based on Russia pushing back at paranoid Neocons.
Worth watching Tucker Carlson ingratiating interview with Putin where Vlad makes it v clear he sees a Greater Russia as valid and that this covers a whole number of adjacent states. I think your opinion would change significantly if you spoke with folks in these countries too. Many old enough to have experienced crushing Autocracy and do not want to go back.
The other interesting point is this ‘West is to blame’ theory aligns with the worst Woke-ist perspectives on revisionist History and how terrible the West has been. Strange bedfellows.
What opinion? I’m not saying there’s anything good about Putin. Nor do I support “crushing autocracy”. My opinion is based on realpolitiks. Your argument gets weaker when you try to put me in the woke camp. Out of interest what states does Putin say he wants?
Oh, your question is easy to answer. In 2022 already the Douma started examining the possibility of holding void the Baltic states’ independence. Actually, you lived in Russia, you had better forget your ‘opinion’ as having one could have led to an agonizing death in an Arctic colony.
Which states does Putin want, as inferred by Watson and as he claimed was said by Putin in the Tucker interview?
From the Tucker interview;
Tucker Carlson: The threat I think you were referring to is Russian invasion of Poland, Latvia – expansionist behavior. Can you imagine a scenario where you send Russian troops to Poland?
Vladimir Putin: Only in one case: if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest. Its just threat mongering.
We’re quite capable these days of reading original statements and accessing facts, Were past the point of accepting your ignorant claims to support (god knows what it is) your position. The rest of your comment is absurd.
You think that the west ought to have held back and let Russia control their rightful sphere of influence, just like I think Russia ought to have held their peace and refrained from attacking neighbours that were not even threatening them. All well and good, but ‘ought to’ is irrelevant here. Realpolitik is about clear, simple questions – to both sides: “What does he want? What can he achieve? What would the cost be? and How much is he willing to pay?”
It is clear that Russia wants to own Ukraine. Avoid the theoretical risk that they just might some day ally with an enemy; gain control over their food production to use for international power; strategic depth; keep the illusion of the ‘great Russian people’ all run from Moscow; not to mention TransDnistria. Which latter is under Russian control and right on the other side of Ukraine – for sure they want safe land connections to their outpost. By the same token they would want to control Finland and the Baltic states. All are uncomfortaby close to St Petersburg, Finland to Murmansk and the Kola peninsula, and the Baltic states block access to Kaliningrad. And Kaliningrad is a major military base on the Baltic, politically untouchable because it is loot taken from Germany in WWII, and physically separated from the rest of Russia. Do you relly think Russia would not take control over Finland and the Baltics, if they could get it at a decent price? As for ‘how much are they willing to pay‘ they are clearly willing to try a major war with the extra risk of nuclear escalation thrown in; why do you think Sweden and Finland felt it necessary to join NATO?
After that, the question in realpolitik is for the West: How much will we let Putin have; What would it take to stop him; and How much are we willing to sacrifice for it? If you say openly that the best we can do is to stand aside and let Putin control half of Europe because we are unable to stop him at a price we can afford, then, right or wrong, you are talking realpolitik. If you just say it is all our fault and surely Putin will do the decent thing and stop after Ukraine – then you are not.
If you say openly that the best we can do is to stand aside and let Putin control half of Europe
What exactly do you mean by “half of Europe”?
Enough. I have given you arguments for which countries I think Putin is likely to start on (Ukraine, the Baltic states and Finland, if you want it repeated) and why. It is time that you stopped asking for endless clarification, and told us your reason to think that Putin is not going to try controlling any more countries once he has finished with Ukraine (or do you claim that he does not even want to control Ukraine, just get rid of the CIA and the N*zis?). Anyway, let us hear your reasoning. I assume you have something better than ‘Putin said so himself, and of course I believe him‘.
Well obviously the Baltic States aren’t “half of Europe”. So we have, at least, clarified what you meant. I wouldn’t need to ask for “endless clarification” if people were clearer about what they claimed. Watson said that Putin claimed, in the Tucker interview, “a whole number of adjacent states” as Russian. It seems to me he said the opposite. You “think” Putin is “likely to start on (Ukraine, the Baltic states and Finland” and you assume you’re right. Once again I need clarification on what you mean by “control Ukraine”. Do you mean invade and make it part of Russia, or do you mean create a situation where it cannot be part of NATO and demand it remain neutral? As regards your last sneering sentence; my reasoning is based on the recent history of Ukraine, NATO and the US. Putin said he is not interested. True, he may be lying. So I am forced to choose between liars. The history of the Neocons, the games the West plays with Russia at the expense of other young men, the paranoid response to Russia by the likes of yourself, the rabid comments here about killing Russians and destroying Russia, the pointless deaths of thousands of Ukrainian youths. Yes, I prefer to take Putin at his word.
It is – very obviously – impossible for anyone to specify ahead of time exactly which countries Russia might want to – let us say ‘take over’ – over the next generation. My claim is that Russia would like to expand its power and territorial control in the general direction of what the Soviet Union had in its heyday (if it can, of course). Hammering on about exact lists of countries is just a distracting tactic.
“Control of Ukraine”. That means that Moscow controls Ukraine – what alliances it makes, who governs it, and what policies it follows. Much in the way the USSR controlled East Germany, or Poland. As you may remember, East Germany was known as the most neutral country in the world – it was so neutral that it did not interfere even in its own internal affairs 😉 . For that Putin does not need a permanent conquest – he has not conquered Bielorussia either, and he expressly said (paraphrasing) that the Ukrainians were welcome to pretend they were a sovereign nation as long as they stayed within the arms of Mother Russia where they belonged. The aim is ‘disarmament and denazification’ – whatever the rhetoric that means a Ukraine that is forced to obey because it is incapable of defending itself against Russian aggression, not just a Ukraine that is incapable of attacking Russia – which neither Ukraine nor NATO would want to do anyway.
For the rest, Russia has an objective strategic interest in controlling not just Ukraine, but also the Baltic states and (to a lesser degree) Finland. Do you deny that? If so, can you explain why? Given that this is in Russia’s interest, can you explain why Russia would choose *not* to take this control, except if other countries made the attempt too risky and expensive? The Soviet Union used to reach much further west than that, and Putin is lamenting its demise. Why would he have fewer territorial ambitions than Stalin had? Russia has already shown that it is willing to take the risk and cost of a major war in pursuit of its strategic objectives. Sweden and Finland clearly feel they need military backing to protect themselves. Why are you so convinced that their fears are baseless?
These are not rhetorical questions. If you have an actual reason to believe that Russia would hold back even if nobody was forcing it to do so, it would be good to hear it. If it is just that you ‘prefer to take Putin at his word‘ I hardly need to say more.
“Once again I need clarification on what you mean by “control Ukraine”.” Perhaps Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from three sides, and its formal annexation of Crimea and the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson, might provide a clue.
So by control you see it as total invasion, removal of government and disbanding the military to be replaced by Russian forces. But I’m not sure you can answer for Rasmus. We’ll see.
Sorry, my answer keeps getting swallowed in moderartion. Short version:
‘Control’ means control. Determining who can govern, what policies they can pursue, and what deals they can make with other countries, under pain of swift invasion for disobedience. The way the USSR controlled East Germany, Hungary, and Chechoslovakia. Note how the main red line seems to be getting too close to the EU, not NATO.
because russia is a fascist maffia state whose main export is instability and crime
whose main export is instability and crime
Unlike the USA. We know what Russia is, so let’s not play stupid little games like that.
Martin M is a Ukrainian troll on job here, just ignore him
I agree. Don’t forget how the tentacles of Russian influence reached right into London and indeed the government during the previous 14 years. We still have the son of a KGB agent in the HoL.
so true
What would you call Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea in 2014 and their full invasion of Ukraine?
An entirely foreseeable consequence of the CIA coup and the attempt to extend NATO into Ukraine.
I wonder – purely hypothetically – whether the Neocons would have traded Crimea for the rest of Ukraine. Holding Crimea with its harbour and airfields would have given the US control of the Black Sea and its littoral, and put Russia completely at the US’ mercy.
The fury with which the Neocons reacted to Russia’s move on Crimea is in my mind reflective of the disappointment of winning a successful coup, only to find that the only prize of interest had escaped.
I really don’t think the Neocons are so realistic. They seem to believe that others aren’t able to play chess..
Even if it had been foreseeable, it would not have been right. Or do you think it was right and just that Putin marched in and took Crimea.
And of course there was no coup, but you really know that. You are just trolling, either for Russian money, or for some other nefarious motive.
Realpolitik has no “right”; it is a chess game for advantage by each of the players. The “players” are the USA and the members of its empire, Russia and its sphere of influence, and China and its sphere of influence.
The “moves” usually consist of suborning or overthrowing the leaders of the “pawn” countries in order to gain material advantage and wealth for the rulers of the players.
The “rightness” of the game and the moves, together with the lives of the ordinary people in the players’ or pawns’ countries are of no consequence to the rulers.
And yes, of course there was a coup…and no I’m not a troll for anyone.
How would you define the difference between a coup and a revolution?
Sorry, I can’t see the relevance of your comment addressing mine.
I think that’s already been discussed by many here. I’m not sure it’s relevant to what I’ve been saying.
Hey, we’re good at it.
Well it does make a lot of money for someone.
The ignoble role played by Boris Johnson in thwarting a peace deal have been skimmed over. Wanting to appear Churchillian he has sacrificed many Ukrainian lives
These lame-duck and highly unpopular among their own citizens globalist war-monger regimes current goal is to push the war up the escalation ladder by the US/UK and France recently providing the Ukrainians with these longer-range nuke capable missiles. The Russians have called it a red-line that would open up strikes on the nations who send them, and who must provide their own military personnel to program and aim them so they can strike inside of Russia.
This is what our leaders who love us all so much that are in charge of the escalation are doing. So the question that Aris should have asked is “Will the Russian’s respond in kind to our escalations of the war?”.
I realize saying this will invite people to call me a “Putin supporter”. All for stating the truth about reality that doesn’t’ agree with their interpretation or stated goals as told to them by their trusted media.
The fact is that we’re trying to draw Russia into attacking a NATO base, and so all the warmongers can say “See, Putin really is trying to take over Europe like we said all along, to war everyone, to war!”, and can sort of trap Trump into continuing the war, or have the humiliating defeat (or capitulation) hung around his neck.
Best case for them is if they can’t draw Russia into a war that Trump has to stop, earning him the forever “Putin supporter” title. He will at least have to calm everything down earning him more of a grumbling “Putin supporter” moniker, and they all walk away saying “We tried to win it, but Trump led us all to defeat because he is a Putin supporter who needs to be kicked out of office and put into prison.”
From the get-go, this is ass-backwards. At every step along the way, it was US/NATO/EU/UK that escalated, beginning with the US’ rejection of Russia’s offers to negotiate in December 2021. And US representatives (bizarrely) explicitly said what the war was about: Its purpose was to weaken Russia, hopefully discrediting the Russian leadership to such an extent that a Yeltsin 2.0 would take over in Moscow and allow the West to resume the looting of Russia that Putin so unfairly put a stop to.
From the first day of the war, Ukraine’s objective – reconquer the separatist Donbas and then on to take Crimea back from Russia – was unachievable. If indeed Ukraine had come even close, then the risk that Russia would use nuclear weapons would indeed have materialised. As it was, that was never a risk.
True to historic form, it took Russia a while to gear up for war. When it became clear following the West’s insistence that Ukraine should ditch the Istanbul Accords and continue fighting that its show of force had failed and it had a war on its hands, Russia methodically prepared for the war the West had foisted on it.
The West counted on economic shock and awe to topple Putin. When that failed dismally (it seems not least to Putin’s surprise), the West had nothing to follow up with. The West has showered Ukraine with money and matériel, and Russia has simply chewed it up and spit it out. Even if the West had given Ukraine the Wunderwaffen that are now being sent (F16s, ATACMS, Storm Shadow, etc.) earlier, it would have made no difference to the outcome – HIMARS, 777, Leopard II, Challenger II, A1 Abrams, Bradleys, all were supposed to turn the tide, none did. Now the West is out of guns and ammunition, and Russia is grinding on.
If the West had cared one jot about Ukraine, it would have pressured Ukraine to implement the Minsk Accords – as Ukraine would have to, in substance, in order to join the EU. Zelensky was elected president on a landslide on the basis of his promise to implement them. But his social nationalist (their identification) fringe blocked him, and without US support, he was not able to do it. The inevitable consequences of those decisions are following now.
> At every step along the way, it was US/NATO/EU/UK that escalated, beginning with the US’ rejection of Russia’s offers to negotiate in December 2021.
So if someone threatens to occupy your house and kick out your family, and you refuse to talk to them about “offers” to just confiscate your savings instead, then you are *escalating* — really?
1984 is long past but Newspeak is apparently thriving.
You’re now referring to post-WW-II Palestine – please don’t change the subject.
Up to Russia’s invasion in February 2022, Russia never threatened to occupy Donbass – on the contrary, Russia refused to recognise the declarations of independence of Donetsk and Lugansk, and insisted that they needed to find their place within Ukraine, in accordance with the Minsk Accords.
Russia in good faith pursued the implementation of the Minsk Accords – which were endorsed by the UN Security Council and hence binding in international law. In 2022, Pedro Poroshenko, former president of Ukraine, Angela Merkel, former chancellor of Germany, and François Hollande, former president of France, all acknowledged that the Minsk Accords were always a sham, designed only to bamboozle Russia into inactivity so that Ukraine could gear up for war.
As for “confiscation” – the UK confiscated Venezuela’s gold reserves, the US confiscated Afghanistan’s central bank balances, and the EU confiscated Russia’s balances with Euroclear, Germany confiscated Gazprom’s assets in Germany.
You want to try again?
Yes that is precisely right.
“At every step along the way, it was US/NATO/EU/UK that escalated…” Presumably then, the invasion of Ukraine by 190,000 Russian troops in late February of 2022 was not an escalation. The villainous West escalated first by noticing that Russian troops massed on three sides of Ukraine were about to invade, an insult to which Russia only responded—by invading.
Yet at a more subtle level, the Biden Administration’s strategy for the war, throughout, has been to equip and train Ukrainian forces to a level where Kyiv can enter peace negotiations from a position of strength
Seriously? Negotiations were set to happen two and a half years ago, and Team Biden made sure they did not occur. How many things has Biden said that we will not do, only to turn around and do those very things?
Sanctions backfired. The Nordstream attacked only harmed the Germans, to the point where you wonder if that was not intentional. There is not going to be some push for “a wider victory.” Putin has been around for 20+ years and not one European nation has had to do anything with him other than decide if it was to buy Russian energy.
Very good article but totally ignores the fact that the neo cons are all about making t bucks from endless wars. They are devoid of morality and care not one bit about the human beings involved in these tragedies.
Alright, I’m convinced ( it wasn’t hard ) that the possibility of a better outcome has been squandered and that Putin has the upper hand and is free “to pursue a wider victory”. But, practically speaking, what does a wider victory mean exactly? Roussinos never says.
If the war is going to end, so be it. I however take great comfort in the fact that large numbers of Russian soldiers have died, and large amounts of Russian military equipment has been destroyed.
And nothing has changed.
Of course things have changed. Russia now knows the West will push back
To what effect? Really, what has been the result? And really it was dead Ukrainians who pushed back and are about to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Proverbs xxiv.17-18.
What a creepy thing to say. Liking the death of humans.
His wider victory (or objectives) are obvious – 1. take as much of Ukraine as he can get, 2. take back the Baltic states, 3. go back and get any of Ukraine that still exists, 4. move West until we stop him.
The Russians have NO interest in taking all of the Ukraine
What is your comment based on?
Tribalism apparently.
I imagine his goal is to get the entirety of the predominantly Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine, including the culturally significant Odessa.
Ukrainians are deserting in droves while Starmer is risking our necks firing missiles into Russia.
Of course…he’s well paid to do so…
Why do American administrations thru the CIA keep starting wars and overthrowing governments when it always only exacerbates matters….except for the US military industrial complex?
Arms sales and other profitable activities.
I’m surprised no one discusses Ukraine joining Nato in the context of the Cuban Missile crisis.
Many have…in other articles
But where is China in this? Is not Russia now under a new Tartar Yoke, with Xi holding all the economic and technological cards in Putin’s war effort?
With any luck the power in Russia will gradually drift eastwards now, leaving Moscow (and Minsk) to reduce in significance, as it’s economic interaction with Europe declines.
Good to hear a tone of realism backed by a better than usual range of info. Bout time we got off that drug which bolsters belief ‘we’ must prevail and can summon the force to do it. Seemed comforting at first, before we saw it lead to one quagmire after another. It’s a relief now to let all that go, along with those who spun stuff to us which relied on it.
Better to seek mutual respect and understanding.
Our Proxy War failed, making Ukraine a US vassal state failed, we didn’t get rid of Putin or destroy the Russian economy and BlackRock et al are set to lose a chunk of change …. Ukraine will never join NATO and Georgia has been terminally put off ever trusting the West. A million people will have died by the time this ends and Russia and China are now besties.
I’m getting the impression this will be the last western military adventure for a while. With friends like us ….. as the saying goes.
It is not complicated. The hostilities will end when all of Putins demands are met. These are:
– Ukraine will remain a neutral state forever
– Ukraine will not enter NATO
– Denazification of Ukraine
-The territories occupied by Russia at the time of the peace settlement remain with Russia and the new borders are recognized internationally.
Otherwise, the war continues until the complete destruction of Ukraine or until the west finds a way to make Russia accept other terms.
It is really as uncomplicated as that.
ps: this is NOT spam but the list element is not processed correctly. you need to check it.
“Denazification of Ukraine”
This shows you are a totally un-serious Russian shill.
“Denazification” unfortunately is impossible too meet because there are no Nazis. Just as there aren’t a brain in anyone’s head who chooses to repeat lie which even Putin has stopped saying.
Why haven’t we sent Ukraine any anti personnel mines? Oh yes, because we don’t have any having destroyed all our stocks because some idiots said mines are dangerous. Weapons tend to be!
We all know what the long term consequences of mines are. Probably one of the worst consequences of military action in regard to civilians.
The Republican block on funding was not good for the Ukraine’s military. But the parallel problem is that their miltiary is run by crazed nationalists. So once they got the money they decided to cross the Russian border and invade. All hell has been unleashed on them now while the West is spooked by the t*t for tat missile exchanges that the State Department persuaded Biden to run with, or his handlers, thinking that would hurt the Trump administration.
The West has bungled this conflict from day one. Arguably day 1 was the bloodless annexation of Crimea via referendum. Day 2 was the Minsk accords but the ongoing fighting between competing nationalists in the Donbas. Day 3 was the West’s refusal to accept Russia’s appeal for a permanent block on NATO membership when the tank column was lined up in Belarus. Day 4 was the only good one when the Russian column was repelled but that might have been a ruse for Moscow to move troops in and formerly annex the Donbas republics.
This year has been a complete disaster. Now the Ukraine faces weakened last days. But I still think Trump can preserve some autonomy for the Donbas republics.
“in reality a humiliating Russian defeat represents a serious risk to the West, by pushing Putin towards nuclear escalation”.
Summarises the total lack of understanding of Russia. They will always do what they can get away with. No consequences=no limits.
I suspect you could change some of the names and much, albeit not all, of that Article would apply to Korea in early 53. At that point the front lines had been largely static for 2 years, Nuclear conflagration had been a consistent threat, and Syngman Rhee had been pressing UN/US to complete the job and reconquer the whole of the peninsula. We know then what happened. Messy and neither side happy, but 70 years later…
The Author has never really comprehended what happens in Ukraine sends a message to both US Allies and those wavering between the West and the Xi/Putin/Khamenai axis. Perhaps he fails now to grasp the ego element in what Trump might do. Getting ‘rolled’ by Putin not a good look for the arch deal maker.
As far as I can see from this unmitigated disaster is that for any peace deal to be accepted by Putin it would take all captured territories to be frozen in Russian occupation with a neutral (NATO, UN? ) ‘peace keeper border force’ between Russia and Ukraine, probably for ever. Would this be so bad? Nealy all of Eastern Ukraine is now a mine- and corpse-infested ruin which will take decades to clear (and the job of the Russians). My worry is that Putin has now turned the Russian economy into the equivalent of Nazi Germany in 1938, so where next?
Russia has set out the conditions for a peace deal in September 2022:
Ukraine withdraws completely from Cherson, Zaporyzhzhia, Lugansk and Donetsk Oblasts in their administrative borders;
Ukraine is established as permanently neutral; and
Ukraine is “denazified”, mainly minority cultural, language and religious freedoms are established (which Ukraine will have to do anyway if it intends to join the EU).
So a “freeze in place” is not an option. To some extent, the Russians have boxed themselves in, but it complicates the picture.
The invasion of Ukraine must be an unmitigated tragedy for those who believe in international law. They will mourn any loss Ukraine suffers in the process of making peace. The sword continues to be mightier than any notion of right and wrong. We have been lulled into thinking that such is no longer the case. Yet we have seen the Palestinians suffer a similar grievous fate as the one that is looming for Ukraine.
International Law consisted of the West, led by the USA doing what it liked…the rest of the world no longer put up with it…
The battle against Russia will continue, for Russia knows no other way than aggression against democracies.
I think its funny that you think you’re living in a democracy
You don’t know where I think I live. But that aside, Putin’s main fear is democracy crossing to Russia, which is obvious from his behaviour over the years.
Is it? And why should the West care?
Certainly. Putin has nothing to fear militarily due to all his lovely nukes and he defensive nature of NATO.
Politically however he is vulnerable given the attractions of the west. The nearer democracy and propserity get to Russia the more vulnerable is the Russian system.
and yet for 20+ years, Putin has not invaded a single democracy.
He has practised aggression in other ways. Ukraine is a democracy of course, and Putin hasn’t been able to invade the likes of Poland because they are in NATO. Doh!
Do democracies typically suspend elections, outlaw and imprison opposition parties and journos, and toss priests in jail, all of which Ukraine has done?
Maybe Putin has not invaded Poland because he has no desire to.
OK. Like many countries, Ukraine’s constitution mandates the suspension of elections if the country is invaded. Normal wartime conditions. Pro-Russia parties have been outlawed after the invasion. Priests working for Russia have been jailed, along with anyone else working for Russia.
Ukraine remains a democracy and will hold elections after the war.
Yeh…right..
What democracies are you thinking of? And how do you define aggression?
Too long as usual. Does UnHerd have editors? Left unexplored is the effect of Western porn on NORK cannon fodder exposed to it for the first time ever.
Are you incapable of reading more than 140 characters?
Saying an article is “too long” then asking for something else to be added to it?
Hmmm…
Russian porn is worse. I would imagine.
Putin has deployed 1000 North Korean troops to strengthen the Russia’s invasion and to capture further Ukraine territory.
NATO and it’s allies should immediately give Putin an ultimatum that unless he provides proof that he is withdrawing his invading forces, a few hours would be plenty, it will employ sufficient personnel and supporting military hardware, on land, sea and air to drive the Russian invaders back over the border.
I suggest you don’t wait and sign up right away
“Nato and its allies should immediately give Putin an ultimatum”
Great idea! Except that we’re not exactly sitting in the driving seat right now
That is a very problematic headline:
“Can Trump save Ukraine?”
Well, does Trump want to save Ukraine? Or does he want to make a nice deal for his friend Vladimir and revenge himself on those Ukrainians who refused to help him frame the Bidens? Does anyone know? Does Trump himself know?
It’s yet another clickbait UnHerd headline.
Not worth spending any cycles analysing these now. We can’t expect any sense from them.