Main Edition
US
FR
September 27, 2024 - 7:00am
War is the overriding focus of the UN General Assembly in New York, and Western momentum behind Ukraine hangs in the balance. President Joe Biden used his farewell speech to the UN to urge allies not to “let up on our support” until “Ukraine wins a just and durable peace”. Yet with the US still blocking the use of long-range missiles to strike deep within Russia, despite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s appeal to Biden yesterday, Western focus appears, instead, to be shifting to the need for serious peace negotiations with Russia.
The growing consensus behind a realist approach was exemplified by Czech President Petr Pavel in a New York Times interview published this week. Pavel, a former Nato Military Committee Chairman, said “the most probable outcome of the war will be that a part of Ukrainian territory will be under Russian occupation, temporarily.” Both sides will need to make compromises; Pavel added that “to talk about a defeat of Ukraine or a defeat of Russia — it simply will not happen.”
Calls from a president known in his country as an anti-Russian Nato hawk for Kyiv to be “realistic” are an indication of how Western opinion is shifting. In the Czech Republic, as elsewhere in Europe, those calling for Ukrainian compromise and a negotiated end to the war were long dismissed by politicians as Putin sympathisers. Now, though, the weight of popular opinion behind peace cannot be ignored. Two-thirds of Czechs would support a quick end to the war even if that means Russia keeping Ukrainian territory, while research shows a preference for Ukraine to be pushed into a peace deal over being supported to regain its land among the EU’s three great powers — France, Germany and Italy.
Like Pavel, leaders from those nations are espousing a more realist approach. Earlier this month, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called for “getting out of this war situation faster”, urging a Ukraine peace conference “with Russia present”. Speaking to Ukrainian journalists prior to his US visit this week, Zelensky described unanimous Western support for Scholz’s position: “All our allies, including the closest ones who are on our side and always against Russian aggression, said that Russia should be present.”
Even French President Emmanuel Macron, whose stance against Moscow has hardened significantly, is now talking about the need to “rethink our relationship to Russia” within a “new international order”. Such statements imply that some form of relationship with Russia must of necessity exist after the war — foreshadowing a diplomatic solution and contrasting with Macron’s previous contempt for the “camp of pacifists” with a “spirit of defeat” on Ukraine.
In this international context, the apparently unsuccessful presentation of Zelensky’s “Victory Plan” to US lawmakers yesterday takes on even greater significance. Zelensky characterised this plan as aiming not for absolute victory and the total defeat of Russia, but for “a bridge to a diplomatic way out”. Yet if Washington remains unmoved in refusing to expand the scope of its military support, Western momentum may swing more firmly in the opposite direction. If it does, Zelensky will have to consider the compromises he is prepared to make as part of a peace deal.
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.
SubscribeIf the rest of the world lets Russia out of this situation without completely breaking it both militarily and economically, it is making a rod for its own back. We will just be back were we are now in a few years time, when Russia invades another country (which it inevitably will). Even if some sort of “peace deal” is reached, whatever is left of Ukraine must be “fast tracked” into both the EU and NATO. The Russians simply cannot be trusted.
By “the rest of the world” you must mean the West, a minority, because the majority ie the “developing world” are either generally supportive of Russia or wisely staying well clear.
Whether or not Russia can be trusted it is plain that the West can only be trusted to eventually “scuttle”, leaving its former “eternal friends” to deal with the mess, whilst having itself profited handsomely.
Ok. I would like to think “the rest of the world” would be sensible in this, but I accept that “the West” is as good as it could get. You are right in saying “the West” has not done what is needed, but I suspect it has provided a lot of support that is not visible. Those strikes on the Russian ammunition dumps look a little too precise and effective to have been done by Ukraine acting alone. I only hope the West isn’t idiot enough to ever again but Russian hydrocarbons.
No matter what help has been provided to Ukraine it is losing and has been devastated. This is not a result likely to persuade other countries to participate in any further Western “assistance”.
Further it seems Russia doesn’t need the West to buy its hydrocarbons, when the rest of the world is.
The net result of the Neocon attempt to “take down” Russia has simply proven that the West is longer the world’s ultimate arbiter, to strengthen Russia, alienate China and make it a Russian supporter.
I cannot imagine a result less beneficial to Western interests than they have now achieved…and yet they still prattle on with their fantasies of the West being supreme. It no longer is, and won’t be again.
Huge numbers of young Russian men have died too, so that is a plus. The Russian economy will suffer as a result. Also, if other non-Western countries want to buy Russian hydrocarbons, there is probably not much that can be done to stop them. However, Western nations should not sign up to be “permanent hostages” again, as lots of European countries basically were before Nordstream blew up.
‘Breaking’ Russia completely. As Imperial Germany was broken in 1918? What eventually came out of that? If the Russians are to ‘be present’ at such peace talks, is this in the way that the Germans were present at Versailles? Would that augur well?
What is this war seeding? If the war is ended, what have Ukraine’s ‘partners’ in mind for her reconstruction? Ukraine’s invasion of Russia only underlines what the Russian autocrat has been alleging, that Ukraine is a potential threat to Russia, especially when associated with NATO.
Given the coverage of this war by some British media outlets, especially jingoistic and gloating online, with Russia’s aircraft carrier rusting at anchor, her conscripts dying in prodigious numbers, and the Russian autocrat ‘humiliated’ daily (though without looking like the physical, spiritual and mental wreck that Hitler became), the ‘breaking’ must have been largely successful. The South African War soon came to be called the Bore War by the British public.
There are those who believe that history teaches. If Churchill thought it politically acceptable in a democracy and not an offence to civilised morality to agree transfer of territory (from Poland – the original victim of aggression – to Russia, one of the aggressors in 1939) and population transfer (what would now be condemned as ethnic cleansing) as a price for peace in Europe after 1945, why not in 1939. Or in 2024?
Well, pupils of history, what learnest thou?
Germany is a European nation, and is geographically at the heart of Europe. The Versailles treaty was always unwise in that context. Only a small percentage of Russia is in Europe, and its values are (and have always been) decidedly un-European. The West needs to ensure that it “keeps Russia down”.
Ukraine must be “fast tracked” into both the EU and NATO.
Isn’t that how it all began?
That’s Putin’s version of it, but why should Putin have a say in what international organisations Ukraine joins? Anyway, Putin obviously isn’t much concerned about the expansion of NATO. After all, he personally facilitated Finland and Sweden joining.
We can’t break Russia … you clearly don’t understand proxy wars. Nor the fact that the West is tired and spent. No western kids are going to die in a trench in Ukraine … Plus, most of the global south is on Russia’s side and are sick and tired of us. Alas after Minsk WE clearly can’t be trusted either.
What better wake up call for the “tired and spent” malaise can there be than the West being reminded what a bunch of warmongering barbarians the Russians truly are. The West needs to massively re-arm, to prepare for the inevitable war with Russia. Fortunately, modern wars need far less “men in trenches” and far more technology. It is in a sense unfortunate that Reagan is no longer in the White House. He would not have put up with scum like Putin.
In this, I think its been mission accomplished. Russian stocks of tanks and armoured personnel carriers are depleted. Their capacity to replenish their stocks with brand new T-90Ms and BMP3/4s is quite limited. Their stockpiles of self propelled guns are exhausted and they’re now stripping barrels from stored towed artillery guns instead. Their tactics are squarely based on human wave attacks and then pummelling defences when they show themselves.
Their capability to attack the rest of Europe has been blunted to such a degree that, if NATO members can get their munition stocks up, they could counter Russia’s one and only advantage: artillery. Poland alone with its expected 450+ HIMARS MLRS systems by 2027, would be able to give Russia some serious issues.
Now the emphasis must be for Ukraine to be given some sort of guarantor status, either by being fast tracked into NATO or, failing that, having the United States, Britain, France, Germany & Poland guarantee its integrity against further Russian aggression.
Great idea! The British “guarantee” to Poland worked out so well last time for all parties…let’s do it again!
BTW, the USA has never ever given such a guarantee…and never will.
Absolutely true, although on a personal level, I would like to see Russia’s oil and gas facilities destroyed too. Destroying Russia militarily must be coupled with destroying it economically.
How exactly do you propose to ‘break Russia both militarily and economically,’
Nuclear strikes? More (ineffective) sanctions? What’s your plan?
More effective sanctions for sure, but also supplying missiles to destroy ALL Russia’s oil and gas facilities, as well as every railroad bridge possible (Russia is very heavily reliant on its railroads to move things – much more so than European nations). Also, even when the war is over DO NOT TRADE WITH RUSSIA!
FREE TRADE.
Countries that are broken economically tend to breed crazy sh’t. Do you really want Russians on the opposite side of the Ukrainian border that are even more p’ssed off than they already are, because you have destroyed their economy?
Happy enough with that, provided it is accompanied by a program to keep Russia down in perpetuity. If they are surrounded by NATO counties, their ability to launch unprovoked invasions on their neighbors.
Realism is always welcome but it would have been more welcome prior to the deaths and mutilation of hundreds of thousands of young men, and the devastation of Ukraine.
Meanwhile those in the West promoting the war have become very wealthy, the dead merely dead.
As Kissinger said “to be an enemy of the United States can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”.
As usual that Kissinger quote is taken out of context. It is like claiming that the Bible is an atheist book because the sentence “there is no God” is in it.
What’s the context you refer to?
Kissinger is expressens what he thinks people will say about the US if they let their allies down, and is doing it as an argument to not let American allies down.
Like theatre reviews: “An unbelievable performance by…….”
Quite likely out of context but true anyway…
That is of course possible, but is it still misleading to say Kissinger said it.
At first glance imputing it to Kissinger gives it some Machiavellian authority. But a moment’s reflection on recent history proves its absolute truth regardless of the source.
Yes, unfortunately everyone will just turn away from this as if it never happened. But you’re right, someone made a lot of money.
The key issue there is what would have happened if the West hadn’t intervened in the initial invasion of Ukraine with the possible resulting deaths, disappearances and inevitable human rights violations of a forced absorption into the wider Russian Federation? Thats not to mention a wider humanitarian catastrophe as the inevitable millions flood into Europe and beyond seeking to flee Russian control. Not to mention the prospect of thousands dying and being mutilated anyway in the inevitable Ukrainian partisan campaign that would have followed.
Then theres the question that inaction (actually, lets call it what it is, appeasement) over Ukraine would have merely kicked the can of war down the road. That actually, a modern and victorious Russian military would have then turned its eye towards the Baltics, Poland and beyond.
By supporting Ukraine, we can have a grip on the consequences. By standing by and doing nothing, we genuinely have no clue what disasters would have awaited both us and the wider continent.
Why the downvotes for what is an eloquent statement of the obvious?
Agreed.
Russian bots? I have noticed that any “anti-Russian” comment I post (and I post a lot) gets some downvotes almost in real time.
It’s as if peopke want to rerun the war against the Soviet. Union, but this time win.
If Trump wins the election a peace ‘deal’ will come about in 2025, with Russia winning land from Ukraine.
The hypocrisy and recklessness of the ‘West’ in pursuing this war,since 2022, by arming Ukraine but not providing them with the weapons they need to win, is confirmation of how weak and unreliable the ‘West’ has become.
Not to be trusted and mired in $Trillions of debt.
I agree from one perspective. The West should have gone “all in” with the weapons and support.
Pavel, a former Nato Military Committee Chairman, said “the most probable outcome of the war will be that a part of Ukrainian territory will be under Russian occupation, temporarily.” Both sides will need to make compromises; Pavel added that “to talk about a defeat of Ukraine or a defeat of Russia — it simply will not happen.”
Realistic and pragmatic.
Diplomacy now?
‘Temporarily’ leading to permanent, otherwise to be repeated at some future date.
Do you have a more realistic and pragmatic solution than the former NATO chairman?
Yes, and it’s only taken 30 months and God know how many Ukrainian deaths for these imbeciles to reach the obvious conclusion.
Not quite yet. There are more Russian soldiers to be killed, and the West needs to give Ukraine the weapons to do that job. What ever the result of the diplomacy, Russia must be so crippled (both militarily and economically) that it won’t have the means to invade anyone else for a few decades yet.
I see. Don’t you think the west have crippled them enough? Aren’t they getting short of conscripts in Ukraine?
Their new conscripts are starting to trickle in, after this years new mobilization.
No, I don’t the West has crippled them enough. There are still Russian soldiers alive and breathing. That can still be rectified, with a bit of resolve. The Russians can bring the war to an end simply leaving Ukraine, so I have zero sympathy for them.
Uggh it was always going to end up here. You’re only surprised if you only watch western MSM.
We have antagonised Russia since 2008 to the point of the invasion. The Pentagon warned 3x (that we know of) to various Admins. that if we kept doing what we were doing it would lead to an invasion.
We did. It did. We turned Ukraine into a PMC to fight for western interests in E Europe and like all western military adventures since Vietnam it has turned to dog ****.
Now we are about to do a runner.
The problem here is, what do you say to the Pole, the Latvian and the Ukranian who doesn’t fancy living under a State run mafia regime where if you speak out you’re more than likely going to be silenced in the most gruesome way possible?
Are we suggesting that we tell those people, “uh, sorry guys, doors closed.”
Poland for one wouldn’t take that for an answer and would have taken matters into their own hands. Actually, you can see from its massive rearmament, geared squarely at chewing up as many Russian infantry formations as humanly possible if they even thought about heading towards the Polish frontier, that they will in all likelihood unilaterally take matters into their own hands to preserve their own sovereignty. If we had just stood by and let the Ukraine be swallowed up, Poland would be even more hawkish about that.
And we in the West wouldn’t be able to do a damn thing about it.
What did we say in 1939 and 1945? Er, nothing.
Well, of course Europe is turning away. The liberal democracies globally have lost the plot. It’s not surprising since they all adopted post-modernist relativism. We have become morally corrupt, utterly selfish and frightened of our own shadows.
Perhaps this comment is slightly off topic, but I wonder about the minefields laid in Ukraine. I’ve read that both sides have laid massive minefields, mainly to protect their frontlines. To what extent will these minefields hamper the return to normality in Ukraine after a ceasefire/peace deal, especially in agricultural regions which historically produced huge amounts of wheat?
Even today, fifty years after the war ended, Vietnamese are maimed by mines laid during the Vietnam war.
Depends.
In a properly run army complying with the laws of war, minefields are laid out in accordance with a plan, which is surveyed and filed (I have done this, with dummy mines).
Scattered mines are supposed to deactivate after a certain number of days.
Of course, in straits, the rules will be ignored. But hopefully, the areas where this applies will be limited.
Still, there will be a lot of tidying up to do. But at least minefields can be demined, the procedures and technologies for doing this are well understood. The aftereffects of certain munitions – e.g. depleted uranium munitions – not so much.
Russia won’t have done any of that stuff. The commission of war crimes is “business as usual” for the Russian army. They will be happy enough to leave their mines in place in territory then no longer control.
I realise the temptation is always great to project one’s own attitudes onto the adversary, but here, there is a conundrum. Both sides are fighting mostly on land which each of them consider their own and which they, whether realistically or not, expect to control in the future. So the incentive is there to act in accordance with training.
Was there not a peace deal more or less agreed to by the warring parties before Bo Johnson made his weighty presence felt in Kiev?
Correct – March/April 2022. Russia would have withdrawn to the pre-2014 borders (i.e. Russia would have kept Crimea).
Russia at the time had already recognised the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk, but had not accepted their bid to join the Russian Federation (that did not come until September 2022). So the agreement called for direct negotiations between Ukraine and Donetsk/Lugansk, but Russia was not insisting on legal separation. The key – as in the Minsk Accords – was cultural autonomy for the predominantly ethic Russian areas (an autonomy Ukraine will have to provide for if it wants to join the EU anyway).
Oh, yes. I forgot that Boris was so powerful that he could scuttle a peace deal with a wave of his mighty hand.
Can we please stop peddling the “blocking long-range missiles” nonsense.
First of all, “the West” is flat out of ammunition. The few missiles it can still spare will make zero difference to the outcome.
Secondly, the issue is not whether the US is “allowing” Ukraine to attack targets inside Russia; the issue is that Ukraine cannot target the missiles, the targeting has to be done by the US or the UK, using US satellite data. This level of direct involvement by the US and the UK in attacking Russia cannot be fudged.
As for “the Wests” true concerns about Ukraine, one need only listen to Lloyd Austin, US SecDef, who said the objective of the war was to weaken Russia (not: to regain Ukrainian territory); to US Senator Lindsey Graham, who crowed that it was such a lovely war since no US soldiers were dying, advocated supplying Ukraine with weapons until there were no more Ukrainians to wield them, and complained that a Russian victory would mean that Ukraine’s resources would then not be available to the US; or to former Ukrainian minister of defence Oleksii Reznikov, who said as a matter of course that Ukraine was a proxy for NATO.
Just as a matter of interest, how did Ukraine manage to target those large Russian ammunition dumps that it has just destroyed?
I presume your comment was tongue-in-cheek – you are of course echoing Lloyd Austin, who said that Ukraine can and is already attacking targets in the depth of Russia with its own munitions. No need for the US to get involved (more than they already are).
The existence of the depots are no secret – they’ve been there for decades, so Ukraine may well have had information on their location from Soviet times. And some of the more visually spectacular strikes have been to depots which have nothing to do with the war, and so might have been less well protected.
And then there is the question of how effective the strikes actually were in destroying high-value munitions, and not just masses of explosives and small-calibre ammo.
The satellite imagery seems to suggest there has been significant damage, and some of those explosions seemed quite large.
Even a continent as badly led as Europe must eventually accept reality.
If the West grew a backbone and gave Ukraine all the tools it needed, Ukraine could drive Russia out of its country. Russia is fast running out of tanks and artillery and, with western help in destroying ammunition depots, it could soon run out of the wherewithal to bomb and shell Ukraine.
Negotiating and signing treaties with Putin is utterly futile because he simply will not honour them. Ukraine already had a security guarantee from Russia to honour the 1991 borders, and despite Russia promising it had no intention of invading Ukraine, Putin did so. Any treaty will simply give Russia the opportunity to rearm and carry on. To believe otherwise is to be terminally naive.
If Putin is not defeated in Ukraine he will carry on his acts of aggression to his neighbours until such time as NATO has no option but to declare World War III, in an eerie parallel to events in 1938-9. If Putin is defeated in Ukraine he will be defenestrated (possibly literally) by his own people, and the next leadership of Russia will have learned a lesson which it will not want to repeat.
The West has the power, if it wishes to use it, to defeat Russia and to send the message to all tyrants, such as the leaders of China, Iran and North Korea that it will not tolerate attacks on other sovereign states. The West is only weak because it chooses to be.