History in the Making: Russian Invasion

I'll believe this admin will take a strong stance against Putin when I see it. The trend continues of weak words and weak action. Putin is doing what he wants and the US isn't stopping him. 

As far as Canada goes, we E36 M3 the bed on the best friendship we had. Same with the EU. The best foil we had against Putin was a strong alliance. Now, that's gone. 

In reply to Xceler8x :

Consider, however, the limitations of the postwar international system 80 years after the end of the war that spawned it. In the 1940s, the US relationship with Europe was not based on any form of equality; a weak and vulnerable Europe had been partially swallowed by the Soviets, and the US was the only thing standing between it and being the next bite. The Europeans needed the Americans. The reverse was not true - the US protected Europe because 1) it could not protect itself, and 2) allowing the Soviets to control it was dangerous and unacceptable (Lord Ismay, first secretary general of NATO famously stated that NATO existed "to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down"). The bipolar world necessitated a sort of us-versus-them mentality in the superpowers, whereas the Europeans were not in control of their own destiny for a time.

Fast forward to today. We no longer live in a bipolar world, Europe is no longer prostrate and defenseless, and the Russians are no longer threatening to roll to the Channel in a matter of weeks. American interests of the late 1940s are satisfied - Europe is not in danger of forcibly becoming part of the Russian Empire - but its current interests are not. China is a new rival, and one that is arguably considerably more problematic than was the USSR due to commercial entanglements. The world is multipolar, and the EU - while not a state and with its own internal contradictions - is neither dependent on the US, nor is it critical to US interests.

Put simply, engaging with Russia, or even suggesting that it is possible, is a way to releverage US power in a way that was not possible under the old, somewhat patriarchal arrangement. This is not to say that the US should burn its bridges and stab friends in the back for no good reason, but rather that, having helped those friends back on their feet and watching over them as they grew and prospered, it may now be worth reevaluating these relationships to ensure that those friends are not resting on US power as a crutch, or worse, using it as a means to surpass their old friend at that friend's expense. In other words, it was clear what the US was bringing to the friendship, but less clear in some cases what the other parties were contributing. At the same time, old rivals who had little to offer in the past may prove to have something of value to contribute in a new, more complex, more nuanced world. History is rife with examples of shifting alliances to accommodate changing circumstances.

I am not suggesting that the US should embrace Russia - far from it. I am suggesting that an objective evaluation of US actions and interests is long overdue, and that exploring every possible avenue to achieve those interests is a useful approach. If the net result involves the weakening of some longstanding US relationships with no discernible cost and some potential benefit, I don't see that as a bad thing, regardless of the methods used to achieve it. In international relations, one cannot afford to be sentimental.

In reply to 02Pilot :

That sounds like a classic case of, "It's not what you're doing, it's how you're doing it."  

02Pilot said:

I am not suggesting that the US should embrace Russia - far from it. I am suggesting that an objective evaluation of US actions and interests is long overdue, and that exploring every possible avenue to achieve those interests is a useful approach. If the net result involves the weakening of some longstanding US relationships with no discernible cost and some potential benefit, I don't see that as a bad thing, regardless of the methods used to achieve it. In international relations, one cannot afford to be sentimental.

I couldn't disagree more. Keep making excuses for this administration blowing up the NATO alliance that's kept the world out of world wars. We *had* a leadership seat at a table of allies we trusted and who trusted us. We *had* the strongest economy in the world. Saying it's worth throwing that all away from some vague hope of more money in our pockets is shortsighted and foolish.

The statement "regardless of the methods" i.e. "The ends justify the means" has been used to justify much cruel, needless, and ultimately unsuccessful behavior in the past. I'd suggest re-evaluating that stance. Also, consider if you'd be ok with Obama or Biden utilizing that philosophy. This admin won't be in power forever. Consider the next administration acting in this way and determine if you're ok with that. 

Here's some data for you.

Trump's "final offer" for peace requires Ukraine to accept Russian occupation - this admin is stating Ukraine should give all this stolen land to Putin without making concrete and quantifiable promises in return. It's a crap deal and our supposed leadership knows it. 

In reply to Xceler8x :

My position has nothing to do with my position on the current administration. My advocacy has strictly to do with the objective analysis of US interests and policy recommendations to support them. It is quite irrelevant who is in power at any given moment.

Recent US statements on ending participation in peace talks obviously has implications for Ukraine and Russia, but I suspect the public pronouncements are more focused on the Europeans. This is in effect putting them on notice that they need to either get on-board with a workable peace settlement - meaning one that is practical and sustainable, which certainly means dropping any sort of moral objections to codifying Russian success - or the US will withdraw, leaving them to shoulder commitments that they are not yet prepared to assume. The logic here would be that if the Europeans recognize that their choice lies in either supporting the US position or being left to support Ukraine on their own, the latter of which is likely impossible without serious domestic repercussions, they will join the US in pushing to end the fighting quickly, thus isolating Ukraine and compelling it to compromise.

I posted long ago that Ukraine's hardline position was likely to be the biggest stumbling block in any settlement. This appears to be a US attempt to leverage Ukraine into accepting what they have long claimed is unacceptable. If their external support falls away, however, they will be in a far weaker position than they are now.

02Pilot said:

I posted long ago that Ukraine's hardline position was likely to be the *SECOND* biggest stumbling block in any settlement.

Fixed. The biggest stumbling block by far is, and always has been, Russia's hardline position... If not for that, there would no need for any settlement in the first place, and Ukraine would have nothing to take a hardline position against.

Xceler8x said:

02Pilot said:

I am not suggesting that the US should embrace Russia - far from it. I am suggesting that an objective evaluation of US actions and interests is long overdue, and that exploring every possible avenue to achieve those interests is a useful approach. If the net result involves the weakening of some longstanding US relationships with no discernible cost and some potential benefit, I don't see that as a bad thing, regardless of the methods used to achieve it. In international relations, one cannot afford to be sentimental.

I couldn't disagree more. Keep making excuses for this administration blowing up the NATO alliance that's kept the world out of world wars. We *had* a leadership seat at a table of allies we trusted and who trusted us. We *had* the strongest economy in the world. Saying it's worth throwing that all away from some vague hope of more money in our pockets is shortsighted and foolish.

The statement "regardless of the methods" i.e. "The ends justify the means" has been used to justify much cruel, needless, and ultimately unsuccessful behavior in the past. I'd suggest re-evaluating that stance. Also, consider if you'd be ok with Obama or Biden utilizing that philosophy. This admin won't be in power forever. Consider the next administration acting in this way and determine if you're ok with that. 

Here's some data for you.

Trump's "final offer" for peace requires Ukraine to accept Russian occupation - this admin is stating Ukraine should give all this stolen land to Putin without making concrete and quantifiable promises in return. It's a crap deal and our supposed leadership knows it. 

I am a conservative republican (small "r", and definitely not in line with what this party has become) and I agree with you 100% and would rather have Biden or Obama in the seat right now. How wild is that?

Opti said:

In reply to Xceler8x :

Yah its called losing a war, its exactly what happened to Ukraine, and also what has set many of the borders in the world, and there isn't the political capital, in the US, for the type of "support" that could turn the tide of the war. It has been the most likely outcome for years. Im not a fan, but its the way the world works, no matter how unfair it is.

They have not lost yet. They're still fighting hard. Trump's position is not much different now from when Zelenskyy told Biden that he needed ammunition and not a ride. The ones that are fighting intend to keep fighting and the ones that are not fighting keep telling him to quit.

02Pilot said:

Recent US statements on ending participation in peace talks obviously has implications for Ukraine and Russia, but I suspect the public pronouncements are more focused on the Europeans. This is in effect putting them on notice that they need to either get on-board with a workable peace settlement - meaning one that is practical and sustainable, which certainly means dropping any sort of moral objections to codifying Russian success - or the US will withdraw, leaving them to shoulder commitments that they are not yet prepared to assume. The logic here would be that if the Europeans recognize that their choice lies in either supporting the US position or being left to support Ukraine on their own, the latter of which is likely impossible without serious domestic repercussions, they will join the US in pushing to end the fighting quickly, thus isolating Ukraine and compelling it to compromise.

I posted long ago that Ukraine's hardline position was likely to be the biggest stumbling block in any settlement. This appears to be a US attempt to leverage Ukraine into accepting what they have long claimed is unacceptable. If their external support falls away, however, they will be in a far weaker position than they are now.

You are still seeing some deep geopolitical meaning behind Trump's bombast. There is none. What he says on Twitter at 3:00 a.m. is what his peace proposal is. Just word salad that he is trying to ram down the Ukraine's throat, not in any way shape or form to help them but in every way to make himself appear good. That's Trump. He doesn't care about you, me, the economy or the Ukraine. He cares about getting likes on social media and he cares about getting column inches about himself and he cares about building himself up by pulling others down. I enjoy your very insightful and educated summaries of the situation in the Ukraine and this is probably the best source of information out there for those of us fortunate enough to know about it. But in terms of Trump and any negotiations that he is part of,  I think you are giving credit where none is deserved. Stop looking for meaning where there is none.

bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:

You are still seeing some deep geopolitical meaning behind Trump's bombast. There is none.

It may be worse than that.

There are two things it might do to remember: Nobody said the world was fair, and we never know as much as we think that we do.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

There are two things it might do to remember: Nobody said the world was fair, and we never know as much as we think that we do.

Those are valid points. But if it walks like a duck...

Maybe it would be acceptable to say that I have zero faith, and even less hope.

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

I will expend no effort trying to convince you otherwise, as neither of us can know definitively how much is rhetoric, how much is policy, and how much is bluff, or what the motives are.

It is my assessment that, despite the way the message is conveyed, that there is a degree of consistency on the major points that renders the position meaningful. This is based not on statements, but rather on the cards the US has to play, which largely remain consistent regardless of who is in power; what changes is how they are played. Other countries understand that the US has significant influence, not by virtue of who is in the White House, but because of its global political, economic, and military reach, and are willing to contend with unconventional or inconsistent messaging because they know that. They might prefer to deal with one person over another, but no matter who the player is, the cards remain the same.

In reply to Driven5 :

I stand by my initial statement. Russia could stop fighting today and have achieved a significant portion of its suggested peace conditions; Ukraine could not. Russia can better sustain its war effort without external support than can Ukraine. While both parties are openly opposed to compromise, Russia could do so and still claim victory of a sort; Ukraine could not. Neither side is currently willing to compromise meaningfully their objectives, but the distance between what is desired in a settlement and what is realistically likely to be acceptable to the other side is far greater for Ukraine than it is for Russia.

Edit: It seems there is very little distance indeed for Russia: Putin offers US to freeze Ukraine war along current front line, FT reports

In reply to 02Pilot :

Without a North/South Korea style stalemate, the only end is going to be not an end, but a pause to regroup and try again.   

If Ukraine accepts concessions, that's just more precedent for the next time Russia tries to take the country.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Could be. There is no end state to international relations. One can only shape the environment to hopefully influence future events to one's advantage, or least to minimal disadvantage. It is entirely possible that Ukraine's best possible outcome here is to build up enough of a deterrent to make any future Russian adventure maximally costly; the difficulty it faces is that the longer it delays settlement of the current active conflict, the more difficult it may be to induce its current supporters to assist it in establishing those conditions.

In other words, those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Citations for this are at the link. There is a not-surprise at the end for those who persist. 

After previously suggesting that the U.S. would not involve European representatives in negotiations to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff met in Paris last week for talks with Ukrainian and European officials. The U.S. presented what it called “the outlines of a durable and lasting peace,” even as Russia continued to attack Ukrainian civilian areas.

A senior European official told Illia Novikov, Aamer Madhani, and Jill Lawless of the Associated Press that the Americans presented their plan as “just ideas” that could be changed. But Barak Ravid of Axios reported on Friday that Trump was frustrated that the negotiations weren’t productive and said he wanted a quick solution.

Talks were scheduled to resume today, in London, but yesterday Rubio pulled out of them. The U.S. plan is now “a final offer,” Ravid reported, and if the Ukrainians don’t accept it, the U.S. will “walk away.”

On a bipartisan basis, since 2014 the United States has supported Ukraine’s fight to push back Russia’s invasions. But Trump and his administration have rejected this position in favor of supporting Russia. This shift has been clear in the negotiations for a solution: Trump required repeated concessions from Ukraine even as Russia continued bombing Ukraine. Axios’s Ravid saw the proposed “final offer,” and it fits this pattern.

The plan would recognize Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea and its occupation of almost all of Luhansk oblast and the portions of Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts Russia has occupied. This would essentially freeze the boundary of Ukraine at the battlefront.

Ukraine would promise not to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the post–World War II defensive alliance that first stood against the aggression of the Soviet Union and now stands against the aggression of Russia.

Sanctions imposed against Russia after its 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine would be lifted, and the United States, in particular its energy and industrial sectors, will cooperate with Russia.

In essence, this gives Russian president Vladimir Putin everything he wanted.

What the Ukrainians get out of this deal is significantly weaker. They get “a robust security guarantee,” but Ravid notes the document is vague and does not say the U.S. will participate. We have been here before. After the Soviet Union crumbled in 1991, Ukraine had the third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. In exchange for Ukraine’s giving up those weapons, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia agreed to secure Ukraine’s borders. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, they agreed they would not use military force or economic coercion against Ukraine.

Russia violated that agreement with its 2014 and 2022 invasions, making it unlikely that Ukraine will trust any new promises of security.

Under the new plan, Ukraine would also get back a small part of Kharkiv oblast Russia has occupied. It would be able to use the Dnieper River. And it would get help and funds for rebuilding, although as Ravid notes, the document doesn’t say where the money will come from.

There is something else in the plan. The largest nuclear power plant in Europe is Ukrainian: the Zaporizhzhia plant. It will be considered Ukrainian territory, but the United States will operate it and supply the electricity it produces to both Ukraine and Russia, although the agreement apparently doesn’t say anything about how payments would work. The plan also refers to a deal between the U.S. and Ukraine for minerals, with Ukraine essentially repaying the U.S. for its past support.

Ravid notes that the U.S. drafted the plan after envoy Steve Witkoff met for more than four hours last week with Putin. But the plan has deeper roots.

This U.S.-backed plan echoes almost entirely the plan Russian operatives presented to Trump’s 2016 campaign manager Paul Manafort in exchange for helping Trump win the White House. Russia had invaded Ukraine in 2014 and was looking for a way to grab the land it wanted without continuing to fight.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election explained that Manafort in summer 2016 “discussed a plan to resolve the ongoing political problems in Ukraine by creating an autonomous republic in its more industrialized eastern region of Donbas, and having [Russian-backed Viktor] Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President ousted in 2014, elected to head that republic.”

The Mueller Report continued: “That plan, Manafort later acknowledged, constituted a ‘backdoor’ means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine.” The region that Putin wanted was the country’s industrial heartland. He was offering a “peace” plan that carved off much of Ukraine and made it subservient to him. This was the dead opposite of U.S. policy for a free and united Ukraine, and there was no chance that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who was running for the presidency against Trump, would stand for it. But if Trump were elected, the equation changed.

According to the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee, Manafort’s partner and Russian operative Konstantin Kilimnik wrote: "[a]ll that is required to start the process is a very minor 'wink' (or slight push) from D[onald] T[rump] saying 'he wants peace in Ukraine and Donbass back in Ukraine' and a decision to be a 'special representative' and manage this process." Following that, Kilimnik suggested that Manafort ‘could start the process and within 10 days visit Russia ([Yanukovych] guarantees your reception at the very top level, cutting through all the bullsh*t and getting down to business), Ukraine, and key EU capitals.’ The email also suggested that once then–Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko understood this ‘message’ from the United States, the process ‘will go very fast and DT could have peace in Ukraine basically within a few months after inauguration.’”

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the men continued to work on what they called the “Mariupol Plan” at least until 2018.

After Russia invaded Ukraine again in 2022, Jim Rutenberg published a terrific and thorough review of this history in the New York Times Magazine. Once his troops were in Ukraine, Putin claimed he had annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, two of which were specifically named in the Mariupol Plan, and instituted martial law in them, claiming that the people there had voted to join Russia.

On June 14, 2024, as he was wrongly imprisoning American journalist Evan Gershkovich, Putin made a “peace proposal” to Ukraine that sounded much like the Mariupol Plan. He offered a ceasefire if Ukraine would give up Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, including far more territory than Putin’s troops occupy, and abandon plans to join NATO. “If Kyiv and the Western capitals refuse it, as before,” Putin said, “then in the end, that’s their…political and moral responsibility for the continuation of bloodshed.”

On June 27, 2024, in a debate during which he insisted that he and he alone could get Gershkovich released, and then talked about Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Trump seemed to indicate he knew about the Mariupol Plan: “Putin saw that, he said, you know what, I think we’re going to go in and maybe take my—this was his dream. I talked to him about it, his dream.”

Now that plan is back on the table as official U.S. policy.

Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky has said that his country will not recognize the Russian occupation of Crimea. In this determination, he speaks for the global rules-based order the U.S. helped to create after World War II. Recognition of the right of a country to invade another and seize its territory undermines a key article of the United Nations, which says that members won’t threaten or attack any country’s “territorial integrity or political independence.” French president Emmanuel Macron and other European leaders are standing behind those principles, saying today in a statement from Macron’s office that they reject Russian territorial gains under the U.S. plan. “Ukraine’s territorial integrity and European aspirations are very strong requirements for Europeans,” the statement said.

But Trump himself seems eager to rewrite the world order. In addition to his own threats against Greenland, Canada, and Panama, in a post today on his social media site he echoed Putin’s 2024 statement blaming Ukraine for Russia’s bloody war because it would not agree to Putin’s terms. Today, Trump said Zelensky’s refusal to recognize the Russian occupation of Crimea was “inflammatory,” and he pressured Zelensky to accept the deal.

Curiously, he felt obliged to write that “I have nothing to do with Russia…”.

Opti said:

In reply to Xceler8x :

It has been the most likely outcome for years. Im not a fan, but its the way the world works, no matter how unfair it is.

It's how the world works if we let it work that way. 

We are not powerless nor is Ukraine. We've proven that. We collectively have stopped one of the most powerful armies in the world with Ukraine. If we walk away now then yes, the world is unfair and the little guy will get trampled no matter how unjust it is. 

If we support Ukraine we have a very high chance of helping David withstand Goliath. 

02Pilot said:

I posted long ago that Ukraine's hardline position was likely to be the biggest stumbling block in any settlement. 

What about Putin's hard line stance or trump's? You say you you're giving an "objective analysis" but you're only critical of one side when it comes to negotiations. You aren't speaking or taking into account Putin's unlawful aggression nor that Ukraine honored its agreements and sacrifices made long ago for peace, such as giving up their nuclear arsenal to secure their borders. An agreement that Putin honored until he invaded again, betraying that agreement. Why would Ukraine make more concessions only to have those broken in the future? Why make promises with someone, Putin, who doesn't keep his word? A bit like not paying the bill when someone performs works for you. 

In reply to Xceler8x :

I've addressed all of these points before. All parties will take firm positions at the beginning of negotiations; the issue at hand is the disconnect between each position and how realistic it is, given the existing state of the game. The US has great flexibility here, so it can essentially assume any position it wishes. Russia is grasping for more than it has, but as recent statements have suggested, they may be willing to accept the status quo, and there for have a fair bit of flexibility, as they are tactically ascendant at the moment and in a position to hold what they have gained. Ukraine, on the other hand, has very little flexibility, due to their dependence on foreign aid, and thus their position is furthest from achievable reality.

"Unlawful" is a meaningless phrase in international relations, as there is no functional international law that contains an enforcement mechanism. The Budapest Memorandum is not a legally binding document in any sense (had it been a treaty, ratified by the US Senate and the other signing parties, this would be different), and it contains no specific language regarding obligations or protections.

Ukraine will ultimately make concessions because it has no other choice, or they will be compelled to sign an instrument of surrender. Rather than being forced into a corner, I'm suggesting it should attempt to use what leverage it has now to shape the settlement to whatever advantage it can manage. Being obstinate will not allow them to do this, as Zelensky seems to be slowly, belatedly realizing.

To your comment to Opti, the accumulated cost of supporting Ukraine over time has clearly tipped the cost:benefit scales for some, just as it did in Korea and Vietnam, and virtually every post-colonial conflict, and many others. Calculations of support do not remain static.

Xceler8x said:

Opti said:

In reply to Xceler8x :

It has been the most likely outcome for years. Im not a fan, but its the way the world works, no matter how unfair it is.

It's how the world works if we let it work that way. 

We are not powerless nor is Ukraine. We've proven that. We collectively have stopped one of the most powerful armies in the world with Ukraine. If we walk away now then yes, the world is unfair and the little guy will get trampled no matter how unjust it is. 

If we support Ukraine we have a very high chance of helping David withstand Goliath. 

well said.

These other viewpoints are overly simplistic and dependent on static analyses. Life isn't a video game. There are more than two choices.

If Truman had let McArthur march into China we might not be dealing with the communist party there now. Politics and politicians matter.