People claim that, since the Ukrainians themselves want to keep fighting, we can’t invoke the cost for Ukraine of prolonging the war to deny them military assistance, but this argument is confused.
A well thought out piece. From listening to folks like Kofman and Alperovitch, what they tend to say is that a ceasefire is very likely to end in a resumption of the war a year or two later under conditions more favorable to Russia. Does that seem clearly wrong to you? Or is the idea that kicking the can down the road is beneficial enough to be worth doing even if it isn't a permanent solution?
1) Your entire argument is based on the premise that Russia will inevitably end up winning the war, which is a highly debatable view, with which many military experts disagree. And polls also show that most Ukrainians (an overwhelming majority, in fact: over 90%) disagree with that view: they want to continue the fight not out of a moral sense of resistance or heroism, but because they are convinced they will win this war.
2) You underline the costs of a prolonged war for Ukraine, for the West, for the world, but strangely enough, not for Russia... It is strange that you describe the war as catastrophic for Ukraine's demographics but not for Russia's demographics: Russia also has a very low fertility rate and now they face massive losses of young men and massive emigration of their young elite.
3) As regards the cost of a prolonged war for the West, leaving moral considerations aside, one can easily make the argument that the West actually paid a very modest price for destroying the better half of the Russian military power (and counting...) and eliminating Europe's dependence on Russian energy, which was a key vulnerability.
4) You are over-relying on a rhetorical technique: you try to dismiss fears, in case of a Russian victory, of a Ukrainian genocide or an end to the international order, as excessive and absurd, but you fail to honestly recognize the actual likely consequences of that scenario:
- What do you really think the Ukrainian population would face in case of Russian victory? Personally, I would expect Ukraine to turn into a second Belarus, i.e. a dictatorship without sovereignty. Do you find such fate so nice for those people?
- Similarly, you seem to ignore that Putin, Medvedev & co. have been abundantly clear on the fact that they see no room for an independent Ukraine. They have said repeatedly they want its total annihilation. We all know the pattern with Putin: a successful aggression is followed by another, worse aggression. Again, no one can think it's a desirable outcome.
I think any conversation like this has to include specific details about what terms Ukraine should be forced to accept. If the US tells Ukraine “get the best terms you can get, and we’ll withhold weapons if you don’t accept them”, then Russia will offer far worse terms. “Be willing to surrender Crimea, but we’ll send you lots more weapons if they maintain their claim on Kherson and Zaporizhzhia” incentivizes both sides to compromise. Unfortunately, a major obstacle to peace has been that Russia has consistently offered terrible deals that even a “moderate” would reject.
Ukraine will obviously not have a German miracle and the idea doesn't work even as a metaphor because the German miracle was about reconstructing housing more or less and resuming normal trade, Ukraine will have completely different problems (ie it was far less about K, and far more about L and A compared to the idea people have about it).
Almost totality of the attention should be paid for remittances, the funding for social programs and industrial policy programs that will jumpstart Ukrainian economy. In practice, the union with Poland doesn't look as such a meme as people think it does if you look at their post-war situation.
I think it will end in the negotiations by the end of the year, because both armies will find themselves mostly lacking in equipment and losing a majority of experienced troops and officers which should severely influence the ability to employ the force for anything.
People who paint WW1 or WW2 style arrows of massive offensives don't understand that both armies are very small, lack relevant training abilities and are not ready sacrifice large amount of troops. In the similar manner, the industry of both sides are not really ready to engage in the long run campaign at this point and the investments to do so weren't done. Russia nominally had a far larger pool but due to consistently reckless behavior, completely incompetent save-keeping procedures comes to the position of being mostly naked far sooner than anyone expected.
I think your essay is convincing, even if I ultimately think it is okay to keep them in the fight if they want to be there.
But I'm not sure that the US policy of support is actually based on the desire of Ukrainians. I think prolonged war simply benefits the US by weakening Russia and making Europe more economically dependent on the US. You see echoes of this when people say "the Ukrainians are fighting for the West so we don't have to" etc. I could be wrong but the dependent Europe theory might help explain why Macron was seemingly cozying up to China recently. Macron might be afraid of being constantly slapped around, like Germany, and wants a new boyfriend. Not saying it will work, but might explain why he's doing it. Idk just spitballing. Would like to read your take on it.
Don't you think pro-war public opinion in Ukraine will ensure the war sooner or later resumes regardless of whether Biden pressures Zelensky into a peace treaty and territorial concessions? Only with more internal division within Ukraine. I suspect lasting peace is only possible if both sides are sufficiently exhausted.
I think “German miracle” should be considered in the view, that prior to WWII, Germany was likely 2nd most powerful country in the world. We are talking about miracle of man, surviving a horrible heart attack, being able to walk unassisted the next year. This is nation going from 100% to 20% and then amazingly recovering to 50%.
A well thought out piece. From listening to folks like Kofman and Alperovitch, what they tend to say is that a ceasefire is very likely to end in a resumption of the war a year or two later under conditions more favorable to Russia. Does that seem clearly wrong to you? Or is the idea that kicking the can down the road is beneficial enough to be worth doing even if it isn't a permanent solution?
1) Your entire argument is based on the premise that Russia will inevitably end up winning the war, which is a highly debatable view, with which many military experts disagree. And polls also show that most Ukrainians (an overwhelming majority, in fact: over 90%) disagree with that view: they want to continue the fight not out of a moral sense of resistance or heroism, but because they are convinced they will win this war.
2) You underline the costs of a prolonged war for Ukraine, for the West, for the world, but strangely enough, not for Russia... It is strange that you describe the war as catastrophic for Ukraine's demographics but not for Russia's demographics: Russia also has a very low fertility rate and now they face massive losses of young men and massive emigration of their young elite.
3) As regards the cost of a prolonged war for the West, leaving moral considerations aside, one can easily make the argument that the West actually paid a very modest price for destroying the better half of the Russian military power (and counting...) and eliminating Europe's dependence on Russian energy, which was a key vulnerability.
4) You are over-relying on a rhetorical technique: you try to dismiss fears, in case of a Russian victory, of a Ukrainian genocide or an end to the international order, as excessive and absurd, but you fail to honestly recognize the actual likely consequences of that scenario:
- What do you really think the Ukrainian population would face in case of Russian victory? Personally, I would expect Ukraine to turn into a second Belarus, i.e. a dictatorship without sovereignty. Do you find such fate so nice for those people?
- Similarly, you seem to ignore that Putin, Medvedev & co. have been abundantly clear on the fact that they see no room for an independent Ukraine. They have said repeatedly they want its total annihilation. We all know the pattern with Putin: a successful aggression is followed by another, worse aggression. Again, no one can think it's a desirable outcome.
This is word salad. You are much too convinced of your own cleverness and what I am forced to assume is a deeply held self-image as a bold contrarian.
I think any conversation like this has to include specific details about what terms Ukraine should be forced to accept. If the US tells Ukraine “get the best terms you can get, and we’ll withhold weapons if you don’t accept them”, then Russia will offer far worse terms. “Be willing to surrender Crimea, but we’ll send you lots more weapons if they maintain their claim on Kherson and Zaporizhzhia” incentivizes both sides to compromise. Unfortunately, a major obstacle to peace has been that Russia has consistently offered terrible deals that even a “moderate” would reject.
Ukraine will obviously not have a German miracle and the idea doesn't work even as a metaphor because the German miracle was about reconstructing housing more or less and resuming normal trade, Ukraine will have completely different problems (ie it was far less about K, and far more about L and A compared to the idea people have about it).
https://twitter.com/devarbol/status/1643364671997587456
Almost totality of the attention should be paid for remittances, the funding for social programs and industrial policy programs that will jumpstart Ukrainian economy. In practice, the union with Poland doesn't look as such a meme as people think it does if you look at their post-war situation.
I think it will end in the negotiations by the end of the year, because both armies will find themselves mostly lacking in equipment and losing a majority of experienced troops and officers which should severely influence the ability to employ the force for anything.
People who paint WW1 or WW2 style arrows of massive offensives don't understand that both armies are very small, lack relevant training abilities and are not ready sacrifice large amount of troops. In the similar manner, the industry of both sides are not really ready to engage in the long run campaign at this point and the investments to do so weren't done. Russia nominally had a far larger pool but due to consistently reckless behavior, completely incompetent save-keeping procedures comes to the position of being mostly naked far sooner than anyone expected.
I think your essay is convincing, even if I ultimately think it is okay to keep them in the fight if they want to be there.
But I'm not sure that the US policy of support is actually based on the desire of Ukrainians. I think prolonged war simply benefits the US by weakening Russia and making Europe more economically dependent on the US. You see echoes of this when people say "the Ukrainians are fighting for the West so we don't have to" etc. I could be wrong but the dependent Europe theory might help explain why Macron was seemingly cozying up to China recently. Macron might be afraid of being constantly slapped around, like Germany, and wants a new boyfriend. Not saying it will work, but might explain why he's doing it. Idk just spitballing. Would like to read your take on it.
Thanks!
Don't you think pro-war public opinion in Ukraine will ensure the war sooner or later resumes regardless of whether Biden pressures Zelensky into a peace treaty and territorial concessions? Only with more internal division within Ukraine. I suspect lasting peace is only possible if both sides are sufficiently exhausted.
I think “German miracle” should be considered in the view, that prior to WWII, Germany was likely 2nd most powerful country in the world. We are talking about miracle of man, surviving a horrible heart attack, being able to walk unassisted the next year. This is nation going from 100% to 20% and then amazingly recovering to 50%.