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?
I agree it’s certainly a risk, but 1) it’s hardly obvious that it would happen and, in view of that and of the cost of the continuation of the war, 2) I do think that kicking the can down the road is beneficial enough to be worth doing even if there is no guarantee that the fighting will not resume at some later point.
I think it’s pretty clear that people in the Kremlin didn’t expect the war to turn out as it did, so given the licking they have taken and the enormous losses in men and equipment Russia has already suffered, it seems rather dubious to me that they would just come back for more in a year or two if a ceasefire were signed now.
Again, I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it sure as hell isn’t obvious and moreover there are things we can do to reduce the probability, such as addressing Russian concerns and arming Ukraine to the teeth while the ceasefire hold to deter a resumption of hostilities by Russia.
On the last point, note that I don’t oppose arming Ukraine per se, but only insofar as it will prolong the war. If we had sufficient guarantees that Ukraine would not use Western military assistance to break the ceasefire, I might be okay with sending more weapons, because as I explained previously military assistance in itself is relatively cheap and in this case it would make a resumption of hostilities less likely.
The war in Ukraine is only valuable to the west if it's a holy war. Ukraine good, Russia evil. You can't negotiate with Putler.
If its just a messy conflict between two incompetent klepto states more akin to a civil war within Ukraine, and if western involvement one of the causes, then its not useful for domestic politics.
And without the domestic political angle, can you really sell it as being in the wests interests? Do we really care who rules Ukraine when they seem pretty equiviliant (let alone some shelled out villages in the Donbass)?
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.
“Your entire argument is based on the premise that Russia will inevitably end up winning the war”
This is absolutely false, as anyone who has read my essay carefully can tell.
“You underline the costs of a prolonged war for Ukraine, for the West, for the world, but strangely enough, not for Russia”
This is also not true.
I stopped reading your comment past this point because I consider that if one is going to criticize someone’s argument, reading him carefully and not misrepresenting him is the most elementary courtesy and it’s obvious that you didn’t extend it to me.
1. If WWI could have ended in 1 year, even the "winners" of WWI would have been better off.
2. There is no moral case for sacrificing Ukraine`s demographic disaster for Russia`s demographic disaster. I`m also dubious about pragmatic gains.
3. All objectives completed, mission accomplished. So, why keep sending weapons then? There`s no futher benefit to be had.
4.
- Belarus is the country with higher economic growth and no war. Ukraine should wish to be like Belarus. At some point Lukashenka will die of old age and odds are they`ll have a democracy with generation of people, who grew up without war and in greater prosperity, then their elders.
- For some reason, I just don`t see Russia conquering the world, any time soon (or to be less hyperbolic, managing any serious war of agression). They barely can afford this one.
Ukraine was a real shithole before the war. Poorer than Russia and its neighbors. Considered one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Most people considered Zelensky a failure before the war, he had a 20% approval rating, and the Panama papers confirmed he was corrupt. His oligarch benefactor was a wanted criminal.
Ukraine has had two color revolutions (Orange and Maiden). Its elected leaders anti-russian from its west several times. It hasn't had any measurable improvement on Ukraine. The guy that replaced Yanacovich ended up arrested. Zelensky as noted went from 75% of the vote to 20% approval.
Honestly it's not at all clear to me that what people are fighting for will actually improve their lives compared a counter factual where Russia did take over. The stakes are even lower now that they are fighting over who will control shelled out villages in the Donbass.
Nearly every people we have defeated in war were willing to fight to the death for whatever propaganda their governments gave them. Japanese committed mass suicide rather then let us make them rich and happy, nobody wanted to fight on more then those people. It didn't make them right, just dumb.
I'm really glad someone addressed this issue. Growing up in Eastern Europe, I often questioned why many Western countries seemed to appease aggressive actions, and failed to prepare for Germany's attack despite warning signs years prior to 1939 (including stuff like, the Phoney War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War). This recent conflict has demonstrated to me that there are numerous people in the West who will go to extreme measures to rationalize their passivity and lack of courage.
In recent times, Churchill's statement, "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war," has never been more accurate than it has been throughout the past year.
A better historical example for Eastern Europe would have been Operation Unthinkable. Stalin clearly went back on his word on freedom for Eastern Europe and was willing to use the Soviet Army to impose communism. At that point that Allies choices were:
1) Start WWIII to liberate Eastern Europe
2) The Cold War
They choose #2. It seems to me that this was the correct choice. I don't think Poland would be better off if it became a "liberated" nuclear wasteland.
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 agree that by the end of the year both armies will likely have lost any offensive potential for a while, I made this prediction in January in my essay on how the war could end, but I don't think there will be a ceasefire (although there may be negotiations), because I don't think Ukraine and Russia will be ready to reach a compromise even just for a ceasefire by then without a significant change of stance by the West, which I don't think is going to happen yet. So I think the military operations are going to slow down for a while, but eventually one side or both will decide that a change of the military situation has to occur to bring about a settlement and it will start again.
Delaying the Ukrainian counter offensive makes the most sense. Only a failed counter offensive could derail western support. If its delayed "you haven't given us the tools to win".
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?
I agree it’s certainly a risk, but 1) it’s hardly obvious that it would happen and, in view of that and of the cost of the continuation of the war, 2) I do think that kicking the can down the road is beneficial enough to be worth doing even if there is no guarantee that the fighting will not resume at some later point.
I think it’s pretty clear that people in the Kremlin didn’t expect the war to turn out as it did, so given the licking they have taken and the enormous losses in men and equipment Russia has already suffered, it seems rather dubious to me that they would just come back for more in a year or two if a ceasefire were signed now.
Again, I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it sure as hell isn’t obvious and moreover there are things we can do to reduce the probability, such as addressing Russian concerns and arming Ukraine to the teeth while the ceasefire hold to deter a resumption of hostilities by Russia.
On the last point, note that I don’t oppose arming Ukraine per se, but only insofar as it will prolong the war. If we had sufficient guarantees that Ukraine would not use Western military assistance to break the ceasefire, I might be okay with sending more weapons, because as I explained previously military assistance in itself is relatively cheap and in this case it would make a resumption of hostilities less likely.
The war in Ukraine is only valuable to the west if it's a holy war. Ukraine good, Russia evil. You can't negotiate with Putler.
If its just a messy conflict between two incompetent klepto states more akin to a civil war within Ukraine, and if western involvement one of the causes, then its not useful for domestic politics.
And without the domestic political angle, can you really sell it as being in the wests interests? Do we really care who rules Ukraine when they seem pretty equiviliant (let alone some shelled out villages in the Donbass)?
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.
“Your entire argument is based on the premise that Russia will inevitably end up winning the war”
This is absolutely false, as anyone who has read my essay carefully can tell.
“You underline the costs of a prolonged war for Ukraine, for the West, for the world, but strangely enough, not for Russia”
This is also not true.
I stopped reading your comment past this point because I consider that if one is going to criticize someone’s argument, reading him carefully and not misrepresenting him is the most elementary courtesy and it’s obvious that you didn’t extend it to me.
1. If WWI could have ended in 1 year, even the "winners" of WWI would have been better off.
2. There is no moral case for sacrificing Ukraine`s demographic disaster for Russia`s demographic disaster. I`m also dubious about pragmatic gains.
3. All objectives completed, mission accomplished. So, why keep sending weapons then? There`s no futher benefit to be had.
4.
- Belarus is the country with higher economic growth and no war. Ukraine should wish to be like Belarus. At some point Lukashenka will die of old age and odds are they`ll have a democracy with generation of people, who grew up without war and in greater prosperity, then their elders.
- For some reason, I just don`t see Russia conquering the world, any time soon (or to be less hyperbolic, managing any serious war of agression). They barely can afford this one.
"Do you find such fate so nice for those people?"
Ukraine was a real shithole before the war. Poorer than Russia and its neighbors. Considered one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Most people considered Zelensky a failure before the war, he had a 20% approval rating, and the Panama papers confirmed he was corrupt. His oligarch benefactor was a wanted criminal.
Ukraine has had two color revolutions (Orange and Maiden). Its elected leaders anti-russian from its west several times. It hasn't had any measurable improvement on Ukraine. The guy that replaced Yanacovich ended up arrested. Zelensky as noted went from 75% of the vote to 20% approval.
Honestly it's not at all clear to me that what people are fighting for will actually improve their lives compared a counter factual where Russia did take over. The stakes are even lower now that they are fighting over who will control shelled out villages in the Donbass.
Nearly every people we have defeated in war were willing to fight to the death for whatever propaganda their governments gave them. Japanese committed mass suicide rather then let us make them rich and happy, nobody wanted to fight on more then those people. It didn't make them right, just dumb.
I'm really glad someone addressed this issue. Growing up in Eastern Europe, I often questioned why many Western countries seemed to appease aggressive actions, and failed to prepare for Germany's attack despite warning signs years prior to 1939 (including stuff like, the Phoney War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War). This recent conflict has demonstrated to me that there are numerous people in the West who will go to extreme measures to rationalize their passivity and lack of courage.
In recent times, Churchill's statement, "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war," has never been more accurate than it has been throughout the past year.
A better historical example for Eastern Europe would have been Operation Unthinkable. Stalin clearly went back on his word on freedom for Eastern Europe and was willing to use the Soviet Army to impose communism. At that point that Allies choices were:
1) Start WWIII to liberate Eastern Europe
2) The Cold War
They choose #2. It seems to me that this was the correct choice. I don't think Poland would be better off if it became a "liberated" nuclear wasteland.
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 agree that by the end of the year both armies will likely have lost any offensive potential for a while, I made this prediction in January in my essay on how the war could end, but I don't think there will be a ceasefire (although there may be negotiations), because I don't think Ukraine and Russia will be ready to reach a compromise even just for a ceasefire by then without a significant change of stance by the West, which I don't think is going to happen yet. So I think the military operations are going to slow down for a while, but eventually one side or both will decide that a change of the military situation has to occur to bring about a settlement and it will start again.
Delaying the Ukrainian counter offensive makes the most sense. Only a failed counter offensive could derail western support. If its delayed "you haven't given us the tools to win".
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%.