Breaking the Deadlock in Ukraine

As Moscow and Kyiv consider large-scale offensives, the West weighs sending new types of weaponry.

By
85
Ukrainian soldiers analyze the frontlines in Bakhmut, Ukraine, in late December 2022. (Photo by Pierre Crom/Getty Images)

Two months have passed since Ukrainian forces liberated Kherson, a regional capital in the south and the last major territorial loss for Russian forces in Ukraine. While combat remains fierce, Ukrainian forces have been unable to make similar advances—a dynamic largely dependent on which armaments NATO allies are willing to send Kyiv.

Last week, the U.S., Germany, and France announced plans to transfer armored fighting vehicles to the Ukrainian military. Washington approved the shipment of 50 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, known as “tank-killers” for their ability to strike tanks from more than two miles away. But like the German-made Marders Berlin pledged, Bradleys can only do so much.

“Infantry fighting vehicles operate in teams with tanks,” said Sławomir Dębski, director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs. “We have just agreed to send the first part of this team. For optimal usage of these vehicles, we need to supplement them with tanks.”

To that end, Dębski said, German-made Leopard 2 tanks are the obvious choice to upgrade Ukraine’s arsenal of Soviet-era tanks.

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
85
By
Comments (85)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    So, we certainly don’t know what is going to happen and at this point I wouldn’t want to bet against Ukraine, but in light of how little we know about the future, we should be giving Ukraine everything we can to give them the best possible chance of a victorious outcome.

    Collapse
  2. Bobking84

    If we are being asked to continue to support Ukraine with billions in military and economic aid plus the targeting intelligence that is no doubt coming from covert US involvement on the ground there, then we get to define when that gravy train ends.

    Putin is clearly the bad guy in this morality play, and while Ukraine has significant endemic corruption and in some respects has antagonized the bear (with our help), they are still the aggrieved party. We should respect their desire for independence, freedom and security. But that does not mean they get to set the terms of OUR involvement.

    Russia may have a greatly overrated military, but they still have the ability to trigger Armageddon, and if for no other reason than that, they are worthy of some respect. Getting them to stop the war means giving them a bit of room to save face.

    While Moscow probably sees the Donbas primarily as a way to destabilize Kyiv, to them Crimea is a geostrategic necessity. Therefore, I would make the following deal to end the war:

    (1) The Donbas is Ukrainian territory that Russia recognizes.
    (2) Crimea is Russian territory that Ukraine recognizes.
    (3) Ukraine has commercial rights to the Black Sea which Russia recognizes.
    (4) Ukraine joins the EU to rebuild itself. (They need it).
    (5) Ukraine joins NATO to defend itself. (They’ve earned it).
    (6) Over the next ten years, US subsidies for European security are substantially reduced.

    If Putin dies soon from cancer or by eating a bullet, that deal may be upon us sooner than later. I’m delighted that we’ve witnessed the degradation of a despotic Russia militarily, economically and diplomatically, but a perpetual state of proxy war with them is both too dangerous and too costly if it can be negotiated and it’s compliance can be assured.

    And hopefully we have learned the value of being an energy exporter to Europe, not to mention our own domestic energy self-sufficiency. Biden’s unilateral energy disarmament policy played a big role in enticing Putin to start this war.

    Collapse
    1. Vlad Lojko

      Giving Putin anything will be a reward for his WAR CRIMES and is therefore UNACCEPTABLE. There is only one acceptable outcome to this conflict, Ukrainian victory and they dictate the terms since they have SACRIFICED the most.

      Biden in now way 'disarmed' our energy policy, he has in fact MODERNIZED the American energy system. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) preliminary assessment finds that the Inflation Reduction Act —in combination with other enacted policies and past actions—will help drive 2030 economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40% below 2005 levels. The legislation would get the U.S. a significant way towards our overall 2030 climate goals, positioning the U.S. to reach 50-52% GHG emission reductions below 2005 levels in 2030. The specific provisions in the IRA will lower energy costs for consumers, enhance the nation’s energy security, improve human health, mitigate climate change, create high-quality jobs and new economic opportunities for communities, and address historical inequities in our energy system. If you are interested, here's a brief that explains all the details,

      https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/8.18InflationReductionAct_Factsheet_Final.pdf

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JDW

      I think I could back your offer. If you wanted to give the Russians the Donbas then I couldn't go for it. Russia needs a warm water port and has fought endless wars trying to secure to keep secure such a port. I think adding Ukraine to the EU and NATO is a big enough gain that I can let the Crimea go to Russia.

      Collapse
      1. Vlad Lojko

        Why give Russia anything and rewarding them for committing atrocious war crimes against Ukraine? Once every Russian soldier leaves Ukrainian soil the war will be over and not a minute before.

        Collapse
  3. James Morphew

    There is no decent alternative other than to support Ukraine, and to seek their victory of a free homeland. To step back and to allow Russia (or any aggressor) to invade a sovereign nation is to invite more of the same, which will simply cost more territory and lives before we step up to face the aggressor(s). The Ukraine success has offered the West a chance to stop Russia once more, thus far with no US troops. We should seize that chance, and prepare for possible escalation.

    Collapse
  4. Carolyndavid7757

    "But armored fighting vehicles are just one component of a broader strategic equation . . . "

    Bing West, writing in National Review online today, points out that giving the Russian forces a sanctuary anywhere outside Ukraine is where that broader strategic equation fails.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Chris Lynch

      That was my intuition, as well. It calls to mind Israel, repeatedly "defeating" neighbors, only to have them come back and try again, because the governments were not defeated and brought down--just their militaries. A dictator at the helm of a superpower gets as many bites at the apple as he wants and can afford, even against the wishes of his own people. Russian "defeat" is, I fear, only temporary.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    TerrBear

    A bit of a non-sequitur here, but, the most satisfying thing about the conflict is that Russian disinformation operations prove spectacularly effective on Russian leaders.

    Collapse
    1. Carolyndavid7757

      TB, the Russians have The Narrative, as we do. But they have absolutely no political opposition.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kizedek

        It’s more to do with how the leader sets the broad strokes of “The Narrative” as a means of control, then gets totally swept up in it himself because he listens to only “yes-men” who continually embellish that narrative for him and stroke his ego.

        This can happen with or without opposition. Like with Trump and stolen elections.

        Collapse
  6. DTruitt

    There have already been several major turning points in this war, and other turning points that were predicted by the "experts" that turned out to never materialize. The day the war started most of the experts predicted that the Russians would make short work of Ukraine.

    That obviously did not happen.

    Then later on, many of the same experts predicted that once the war became a war of attrition, with artillery duels in which it was claimed that Russia was far stronger than Ukraine, the Russians would quickly annihilate the Ukrainians.

    That did not happen.

    Then other experts predicted that the Ukrainians would force Russia to withdraw by the end of 2022 out of sheer exhaustion and loss of political influence by Putin.

    That did not happen.

    Nobody knows what will happen. Period. People can seize on this thing or some other thing and declare it to be the lynchpin, and that the outcome was always predetermined and inevitable. And they will still be wrong, except for the proverbial stopped clock that is right twice a day.

    I think that it is highly unlikely that the Ukrainians will tire of the war and its cost and thus surrender, or agree to dishonorable peace terms that conveys a large part of their nation to Russia, which would only delay the inevitable when Russia gets up armed again and makes another go of it. Ukrainians know this is 100% about their survival as a nation.

    The Russian people and their opinions don't count since they are a dictatorship run by a tiny elite. The folks who may tire of the war and demand a cessation or even withdrawal are the elites who have found out to their horror that Putin made them poor and international pariahs, and they are getting very tired of it. But that doesn't mean they will launch a coup. However, that seems more plausible than the Ukrainians throwing in the towel.

    Collapse
    1. Carolyndavid7757

      DT, what did happen resembles the Eastern Front (from Germany's perspective) in WWII. As the Wehrmacht attacked eastward, Stalin employed his major cities as defense positions. When the Red Army gained the initiative, the Wehrmacht used their cities as defense positions.
      Now, we call that using human shields.
      But in this war, the Russians attack Ukraine's cities. The WWII analogy is the Allies' bombing of German cities, because that was where the armament factories workers lived.
      The difference could be if the Ukraine's armed forces gained fire and steel to lay down on the Russian Army. And cause it to leave Ukraine.
      The Russian people might tire of hearing that several million young Russians had died. And for what? Maybe not, though.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    People seem way too bullish regarding Ukraine's offensive potential. Read the article below from Professor Stephen Biddle and you may agree with me. Key sentence below

    "Successful offense has long been very difficult, and it has normally required both demanding preparations and a permissive defender"

    Ukraine's new western tech will not be enough to allow Ukriane to rout Russia. Kherson and Kharkiv offensives worked because Russia had weak defenses in those areas.

    https://warontherocks.com/2022/11/ukraine-and-the-future-of-offensive-maneuver/

    Collapse
    1. DTruitt

      War is never as simple as you suggest. There are lots and lots of factors that affect the progress and outcomes of wars. Everybody thought defense was the way to go between September 1914 and April 1940 ... and then the German Wehrmact proved that a highly maneuverable offense ("Blitzkrieg") can nullify and overwhelm the best defenses in the world at that time, against the biggest and strongest army in the world at that time (France). That is not to say that offense beats defense either, but anyone who declares that it is one thing, or some other thing, that will be determinative simply doesn't know what they're talking about.

      Note that a very large proportion of this newest round of equipment support to Ukraine is part of "maneuver warfare" - mobile armor and armored troop carriers. Presumably both the Ukrainian military leaders and the NATO military leaders believe that this has been a missing element in the war by Ukraine to date. Even when Ukraine went on the offense, as in Kherson, it was more a matter of the Russians seeing that they were in danger of being cut off on the wrong side of the Dnieper River, and so evacuated Kherson. It was not the case that the Ukrainians out maneuvered the Russians last fall when they liberated Kherson.

      Wars are won when one side destroys the other side's military force, and/or destroys the will to continue the war of the other side. How one gets to either of those two outcomes is where prognostication often fails and the real world always intrudes.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        MatthewRobin

        Your simplistic offense vs defense narrative needs an update. You should consider reading the article I linked.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Chris Lynch

          I think you two may be more in agreement than you think. Regardless of whether we're talking combat, football, or chess, some advantages are with the attacker: surprise, initiative, foreknowledge of what to prepare. These can be looked at as force multipliers with respect to quality and depth of personnel and materiel. But they fade after a short time and need to be "replenished" with new initiatives. Not only this, but astute, well-resourced defenders with good ISR can nullify those attacker advantages . Defenders, especially on their home field, have shorter supply lines and are defending their homes and families. While attackers are firing and maneuvering, defenders fire from cover. They also have the option of melting away and mounting an insurgency, as the Iraqis did to us. Many other factors can go to either side--asymmetric capabilities, intelligence, the moral high ground, and the marshaling of allies.
          But I can see where Biddle has a point in his favor: the attacker not only has to take territory, but he has to hold it and protect it. The more he takes, the more resources it takes to hold it.
          Your choice of that particular sentence to summarize Biddle is perplexing. Biddle paints a complex picture that does not easily reduce to "advantage: defender".

          Collapse
        2. DTruitt

          You're the simplistic dude here - I said just the opposite, that war is NEVER simple and it is NEVER just one thing that wins a war as you claimed.

          You wrote:

          ""Successful offense has long been very difficult, and it has normally required both demanding preparations and a permissive defender"

          Ukraine's new western tech will not be enough to allow Ukriane to rout Russia. Kherson and Kharkiv offensives worked because Russia had weak defenses in those areas."

          Poppycock! Whether offense or defense is difficult or not depends upon a lot of very specific circumstances as well as various skills and capabilities of the opponents.

          Generalities and simplistic statements like yours are useless in war.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            MatthewRobin

            What you wrote:
            "and then the German Wehrmact proved that a highly maneuverable offense ("Blitzkrieg") can nullify and overwhelm the best defenses in the world at that time, against the biggest and strongest army in the world at that time (France)"

            Stephen Biddle's retort (with my simplistic interjections):
            "Of course there have also been dramatic offensive successes since 1917. The German invasion of France in 1940 knocked the French out of World War II in a month. The German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 destroyed over 100 Soviet divisions and advanced to the gates of Moscow in a season. Operation Cobra in 1944 broke through German lines and retook most of metropolitan France in a month. The Israeli invasion of the Sinai in 1967 triumphed in just six days. The American counteroffensive in Operation Desert Storm in 1991 evicted the Iraqis from Kuwait in 100 hours of ground fighting. The 2020 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh drove the Armenians from the Aras River Valley in less than two months. "

            (As the author states, massive offensives have occurred in the 20th and 21st century, but its important to show why these occured)

            "But this pattern does not suggest any epochal transition from defense dominance in World War I to offense dominance in World War II and after to some new era of defense now dawning in the 21st century. Instead, as I argue in my book, Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle, the reality of war since at least 1917 has been a consistently powerful relationship between force employment — the tactics and operational methods adopted by the combatants — and combat outcomes in the face of progressively more lethal firepower. Where defenses have been deep, supported by operational reserves and well-prepared at the front, quick blitzkrieg success has been all but impossible over more than a century of changing technology. Well-trained, astutely employed attackers with numerical superiority can take ground against such defenses, but slowly and at great cost. Clean breakthroughs followed by exploitation and the decisive conquest of large theaters has long required a permissive opponent — that is, a defender who lacks depth, who has failed to withhold a meaningful reserve, who has failed to ensure cover and concealment at the front, and, often, whose troops lack the motivation to fight hard in the defense of those positions."

            (According to Biddle's research, Germany's massive offensive was mostly a result of poor French defense. Once the Germans found properly prepared defenders, they faltered.)

            Defenders and attackers have varied widely over the last century in their ability to implement these methods. Deep elastic defenses are complex and difficult to manage. And the kinds of combined arms techniques needed to make even slow headway against them are at least as hard to execute in the field, especially where air and ground forces must cooperate closely. Often, the best single predictor of outcomes in real warfare has thus been the balance of skill and motivation on the two sides. Where both sides can handle the complexity of modern warfare and use their materiel to full potential, the result has often been slow, grinding battles of attrition that look more like 1918 than 1940 or 1967. But where defenders, in particular, lack the skills or the motivation to master complex modern warfare and present shallow, forward, ill-prepared or poorly motivated defenses, then astutely-led, well-trained attackers have been able to exploit defenders’ failings and produce lightning victories — whether in 1940 or in 1967 or in 1991.

            (This is the crux of my position. I believe Russia now maintains strong enough defenses that should make a new massive Ukrainian offensive too costly for Ukraine. Ukraine should continuously attempt to weaken Russian positions, and only attack when they believe they found a weak position.)

            Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    DougCLE

    I was good up to the last line.

    My goal, and what I think NATO’s goal should be, is to stop the invasion, not to repel it. (Technically, my “realpolitik, U.S. interests” goal was to get the Russkies to expend a bunch of men and matériel for no great gain, but that has already been accomplished.) I do want Ukraine to win, but I don’t need Ukraine to win, not outright, and if the Russians asked for a ceasefire tomorrow, I would say we take it, even if the eventual treaty meant ceding some of their gains to them.

    Still, it’s good to see Europe stepping up, and upping the ante, too.

    Collapse
    1. PJP

      The problem is that if Ukraine doesn't largely kick the Russians out, the proceedings will just start again as soon as Putin or his successor finishes rebuilding the Russian military. Depending on what territory Putin keeps, Ukraine may have trouble rebuilding its own economy and military for the new invasion.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        I dunno, man. They've been getting the living sh** pounded out of them for most of a year now, by a country they were promised was easy meat. They are not the U.S. and Western Europe with a healthy defense industry and plenty of cash and credit to rebuild their weapons stores, and they are likely to remain under sanctions for awhile.

        I do want Ukraine to largely kick the Russians out. What I'm saying is that I don't think we *need* Ukraine to *entirely* kick the Russians out in order to accomplish our own objective of shutting down Russia's imperial ambitions for a very long time. I could be entirely wrong about that, but I still maintain that THAT is our goal, not "the victory of Ukraine."

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          I’m of like mind except that I don’t accept our aim is to “shut down” anything but the war itself on acceptable terms. Then we begin to fortify Ukraine against future attack. I think people get led astray by Ukrainian successes to date and forget they are the permanent underdog. It’s easy to think they’re just a major counteroffensive away from total victory. I wish they were. But prolonging the war to reach that outcome can be outweighed by the death and destruction that will accompany it.

          It’s hard to discern, though. I don’t think we’re at a pull-the-plug point at all. I’m not opposed to the latest IFV donations. And I would like to see them regain their lost coastline before the Donbas if it comes to a choice in the end. But I definitely oppose contributing what they require to, for example, get Crimea back. Hopefully, they continue to surprise us and make good use of steady supplies from the West. It’s again time for some tough choices. Supporting something short of victory is not popular, though we should be used to it.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kizedek

            “But prolonging the war to reach that outcome can be outweighed by the death and destruction that will accompany it.”

            This is a little like negotiating with a terrorist, though. Ukraine has already suffered immeasurable death and destruction. And war crimes. Russia needs to release what it took, and be held accountable for the additional death and destruction.

            Otherwise, it’s like saying: “OK, sure, go ahead and have Alaska, since you’re there, because I don’t like the idea of you using artillery and rockets to further pound Seattle and Portland into even more dust over the next couple of years than they already are. As long as we can just spare some additional ‘death and destruction’ in Seattle and Portland, it’s all good.”

            Everyone needs to see and treat Russia as the North Korea it is under Putin. There is no “face” for Putin or Russia to save or be given.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      MarqueG68

      Totally disagree on this one, Doug. Any concession of this illegal war simply rewards sovereign nations taking over their smaller, weaker neighbors. Allowing the Russians in their bloodthirsty neonazi colonial frame of mind to annex others' territories (along with committing overt acts of genocide) will endorse this behavior and set precedents that we'll be paying for from now on.

      (Standing idly by as they annexed parts of Georgia in 2008, perpetrated heinous war crimes in Syria, and then swallowed up parts of Ukraine in 2014 led directly, inexorably to this current war--that's undeniable to anyone with eyes and common sense. This Russian regime will not stop until it experiences a decisive defeat.)

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        Anyone is free to disagree with me, M. I don't take it amiss.

        However, think hard about what you're saying: are you really ready to do whatever it takes to achieve Ukrainian victory? Because Kuleba is. As he *should* be, obviously - his country has been invaded, after all - but are you willing to go everywhere he is?

        If Ukraine starts losing, badly, and the only way to pull out a victory is to provide American troops, are you prepared to send them? If Russia has an airfield deep inside its own borders, and its planes are decimating the Ukrainian resistance, are you willing to send American bombers into Russian airspace to destroy it? That's what you're committing to when you say "There can be only one goal: the victory of Ukraine." If you don't want that commitment, then I'd ask you to think hard about what your primary goal - not what you want, but what you need - in Ukraine actually is.

        A lot of people seem to think I'm saying we should pull out or ramp down right now. I am not. Heck, if anything I'd like to see us ramp up some more. I would love to see Russia rolled back, Crimea retaken, Putin deposed, and Ukraine join NATO. All I'm saying is that my one goal - the thing I need most out of this conflict - cannot be the victory of Ukraine, because I'm not willing to do everything it would take to achieve it. I don't think many others here are, either.

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          Again, what you’re saying now has very much been my position from the first two months. Our war aims are not necessarily Ukraine’s war aims, which should be ending the war on the most acceptable terms achievable. Obvious, yes. But not identical to the “total victory” and return to original borders, even Crimea, that some set their sights on.

          There was always bound to be a time when the piper names the tune. We just should not follow any bitter-enders in Ukraine, if it comes to that. But the classic saving-face rationale for war, here is where we make our stand, it’s a clash of civilizations—all that leads in the direction of further, unnecessary bloodshed. As usual, I hear almost zip from any corner about peace. War needs no boosters.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Alina M.

          What you're saying here makes no sense. The only way for russia to be rolled back, Crimea retaken, putin deposed, and Ukraine join NATO is for Ukraine to win and for russia to lose. There is no other way. Nobody is asking the Americans to go to Ukraine and join the fight. The only thing Ukraine needs is enough of the right kind of weapons. This point has been reiterated many times. When you say that the thing you need most out of this conflict is "not the victory of Ukraine" and that Ukraine should give up its territory to russia, you want Ukraine to lose. That will never happen.

          Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          MarqueG68

          Appreciate the reply—and I think we’re largely on the same page. We’ve got slightly differing concluding conditions, and I’m a bit more gung-ho chicken-hawkish.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            Well, I definitely kicked the sh**-bucket with this one. I don't mind - I'm used to defending unpopular positions - but it's a change, because usually I'm the one defending our commitment to Ukraine.

            Usually, I'm arguing with some MAGA guy who wants us to pull out, and is asking what we get out of the deal. To which I respond, we get to fight Russia on the cheap, downgrade their capabilities for future war, and send a warning "pour encourager les autres", all at a rock-bottom price and with no American lives at risk. As I've said elsewhere, that's a once-in-a-lifetime bargain with a free set of steak knives!

            And to be clear, my position hasn't changed! I still think we were right to assist Ukraine. I still hope to continue to do so, at current levels or even higher. My point - my only point - is that I have my own reasons for doing so, reasons that would be *best* served by an unequivocal Ukrainian victory, but could still be decently served by a partial victory. Some people seem to get that; many others do not.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Robert Knudson

      I am wary of a prolonged conflict, but I am not sure that the Russians will bargain in good faith or that Ukraine will receive better security guarantees than the papers it already has on file.
      If repelling the Russians rather than merely ceasing hostilities further diminishes their operational capacity I think it might be worth it, as it pushes back their ability to pose a threat in the future. That this also makes a firm statement to other aggressor states that any gains made through invasion can be contested would be a worthwhile deterrent as well in other theaters.
      Crimea is the one area I can see being on the table, although including it is more a concession to Russia's friends in Europe than it is a means of checking further attacks.
      I admit that Europe is not wholly committed to its own defense, but insofar as Russia seems to work with China and Iran I believe a check on one will weaken the whole lot and that America's reliance on global trade (and order) for prosperity probably merits America's commitments in Europe and our willingness to arm the Ukrainians against the Russians.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        "If repelling the Russians rather than merely ceasing hostilities further diminishes their operational capacity I think it might be worth it, as it pushes back their ability to pose a threat in the future. That this also makes a firm statement to other aggressor states that any gains made through invasion can be contested would be a worthwhile deterrent as well in other theaters."

        Wholly agree. I'm only saying that, in that case, your "only one goal" is NOT the "victory of Ukraine", but rather what you just wrote. And I agree with that goal, and I don't care too much whether Europe is all-in, because America benefits from a relatively peaceful and orderly world regardless of what Europe thinks of it. I'm not saying to pull out, or even to pull back; I'm just trying to be clear-eyed about what our objectives actually are.

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          I would like to again qualify my agreement to the first posts of yours that I read as you keep adding a new wrinkle to your position. I thought “total victory” was not the aim. You are now endorsing extending the conflict for what is essentially an extraneous teaching moment. I do not at all agree with this proxy-war reasoning. It is what I oppose most of all amongst many TD commenters. Our peace faction didn’t last 15 minutes, alas.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            Not quite. I am proposing extending the war for so long as it remains advantageous to do so. I haven’t yet decided what “no longer advantageous” looks like; as Justice Stewart said of obscenity, I’ll know it when I see it. I certainly still think that the most advantageous outcome is a free and whole Ukraine, but it is not the only advantageous outcome.

            I am not adding wrinkles, as my position has not changed throughout. I am still a neocon at heart. I still believe America has both the power and the responsibility to contest the violent hegemonies of tyrant nations. To that end, I think periodic displays of American might are useful as reminders of why it’s a bad idea to invade a country in which we have an interest. Doubly so for displays of American might where America itself is barely involved. You call this a proxy war, but really it’s only half a proxy war, no? An American proxy has been rolling up a Great Power for some months now. That sends a much stronger message than the U.S. and its enemies playing Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots with some third-world banana republics.

            In any case, my position remains the same as it ever was. As I have oft repeated here, I only want to be clear-eyed and open about my goals for this conflict, lest we inadvertently commit ourselves to an outcome beyond that which serves American interests as *I* see them. It is entirely possible that you and I have differing opinions on what those interests are. For right now, though, I think all three of our goals - yours, mine, and the Ukrainians’ - align, so there is no need for factional squabbling just yet. 😉

            Collapse
    4. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

    5. Avatar photo
      George.Skinner

      Slowing the war down potentially turns it into a war of attrition. Russia’s larger population gives them an advantage, and Ukraine is also going to have to reckon with an economy almost shut down by the war and ongoing Russian efforts to destroy their electrical grid and other infrastructure. Russia may lose its technological edge against Ukraine, but Russia has a long military tradition of using the mass of its forces to bludgeon their enemies irrespective of cost. I think this could end up looking a bit like the Iran-Iraq war, where Iraq kept an edge in technology but Iran kept fighting with the advantage of its larger population.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        When I say "stop the invasion", I mean by permanent treaty and cessation of hostilities. I do not mean "keep holding them off indefinitely". Sorry if that was not clear.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          George.Skinner

          I’m not sure how you stop hostilities without defeating Russia and/or changing the ruling regime in Russia. Putin’s regime has already violated several agreements respecting Ukraine - they can’t be trusted to keep their word.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            Given that Russia's stated goal remains the complete subjugation of Ukraine and its incorporation into the Russian Federation, I would say any outcome that is not that could be considered "defeating Russia". This includes a peace treaty with some conceded territory. OTOH, if your only hope for stopping hostilities is regime change in the third most powerful nation in the world, then we'd be better off spending our money on Putin-shaped voodoo dolls, because that's a safer bet than lobbing shells at Russian conscripts.

            I don't trust the Russkies to keep their word. I do trust them to learn from a very unfavorable experience and not try this again. If we had put this much effort into fighting them in Crimea, I don't think we'd be having this conversation now, even if we'd **still lost Crimea**.

            I should note here that no one is currently proposing a peace treaty, much less one that we might consider a "serious offer", so this is all a moot point. As I told Picov, I'm not making any noise about pulling out or backing off our support - I am all-in for now - I just want it to be clear from the outset that some total "Ukrainian victory" is not actually my goal. If it were, I'd be calling for us to send them nukes.

            Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      Picov Andropov

      A ceasefire would only give the russian military time to regroup and reorganize. It would be a huge strategic mistake. Putin would simply use that time to build up his army, go for another attack on Ukraine, and threaten NATO/Europe. His position is a lot weaker than before 2.24.22, but he's still a dangerous enemy.

      Also, we are in no position to "negotiate" a ceasefire over Zelenskyy's head. His country is being invaded and only he and the UKR Rada can decide whether to accept the ceasefire or not. Pressuring him to stand down while the vast majority of Ukrainians want to retake their country and liberate their ppl from russia's genocidal occupation is a fool's errand.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        We are, in fact, in every position to negotiate over Zelensky's head. Without US/EU supplies and materiel, Ukraine falls within the month. I'm not saying this is the moral thing to do, just laying out the cold facts of the situation. However, I had envisioned it more as twisting his arm to accept some concessions; I was not planning on leaving him standing outside the meeting room door like we did in Afghanistan.

        As to what a ceasefire would do for Russia... build up a new army from what, exactly? Untrained and unwilling conscripts? Soviet era weapons? I'm not saying Putin cannot still win with those handicaps, but that is where he is at. A two-week ceasefire to discuss a treaty isn't going to change that. (And it's not like we wouldn't be re-arming Ukraine in the meantime.) However, discussion of a permanent treaty is the *only* reason to accept a ceasefire. Even if I think a ceasefire doesn't particularly help Putin, there is no reason to allow him any respite for no long-term benefit on our part.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Alina M.

          No, you are not in any position to negotiate over Zelensky's head. Ukraine will not sede any of its territory, so may forget about it.

          Collapse
        2. DTruitt

          Dude - it's not our war, and we aren't doing the fighting, the bleeding and dying, or losing our own key equipment. It's the Ukrainian's war and it is in the interests of the US and NATO to see that Ukraine wins it. Period.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            Why?

            I'm not saying it *isn't* in our interest, I'm asking you to think carefully about why it *is*. Is it because Ukraine is a uniquely noble nation? Is it because they're our ally that we are treaty-bound to defend?

            Or is it because it's in our interest to maintain the Pax Americana, beat back a rival power, and send a message to would-be conquerors that they should think twice about messing with any nation we have an interest in? Because if so, then THAT'S your "one goal".

            And if that's your one goal, then it's not wrong to consider whether a total Ukrainian victory is necessary to achieving that goal, or if you can achieve it with a partial victory. That is the point I am trying to make. Our goals align with Ukraine's, but that doesn't mean they are exactly the same.

            Collapse
        3. Bdecicco2001

          "As to what a ceasefire would do for Russia... build up a new army from what, exactly? Untrained and unwilling conscripts? Soviet era weapons? "

          The've done a lot of damage with such things. Given a couple of years, they could rebuild.

          And if 'peace' comes, it will be harder to maintain sanctions.

          Collapse
        4. Avatar photo
          Thomas Grimmer

          What's the motto of The Dispatch? You get more of what you subsidize. If the US forces Ukraine to grant (more) concessions to Russia, (say acceptance of the loss of Crimea and the other new "Russian" oblasts) the whole facade that land grabs are not acceptable comes down.

          The choice the pro-Ukrainian side has is this: a belligerent, irredentist Russia, or a belligerent, irredentist Russia with a Ukrainian rump state.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            Well, we're currently subsidizing war in Ukraine. Do we want more of that? Or do we want the war to end at some point?

            And hey, don't get me wrong - as I keep saying, I'm more than happy to keep dumping money into Russia's beclowning, for as long as it serves American interests, and as long as Ukrainians are willing to keep fighting. However, if we do want the war to end at some point we have two options:

            1) "Ukrainian victory" as Kuleba envisions it: totally roll back Russia to at least the pre-2022, possibly pre-2014 borders. Which we can do... but it will take a much heavier US/EU commitment - planes, tanks, and offensive ordnance to penetrate deep into Russia proper - that we haven't seemed willing to give so far. (And taking back Crimea, if you're serious about that, might require direct involvement.)

            2) Something less than that, where Russia agrees to take some part of its winnings (how much would be a point of discussion) and go home, and Ukraine remains a slightly smaller, but still free, republic.

            I am simply saying I would consider Option 2, should it become available. It currently is not, and I don't see it coming up anytime soon, but even considering it as a possibility means that my goals are not the same as Kuleba's.

            Collapse
        5. Avatar photo
          Mike B

          Such a ceasefire would basically be 2014 all over again. The West can end this thing by supplying the means - as David French says, Western arms and Ukrainian valor. Allowing Russia to consolidate its gains and continue the genocide in the occupied territory would be immoral.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            No. As I said to George: If we had put this much effort into helping defend Crimea, I don't think we'd be having this conversation now, even if we'd **still lost Crimea**. We didn't really hurt Russia last time; this time we did, and badly.

            As I keep saying, I'm all in on continuing to help Ukraine make the Russians look like chumps, and if it results in a true victory for them - Russia suing for peace, maybe even Crimea back on the table - then no one will happier. But my actual *goal* is maintaining the Pax Americana by reducing the Russian (and by example, the Chinese) appetite for future wars. My goal is not "Ukrainian victory". And if you are satisfied with the current levels of assistance we are giving them - no nukes, no troops, no air support, only defensive ordnance - then I would submit that it's not your goal, either. (And that's okay!)

            Collapse
        6. Avatar photo
          Picov Andropov

          Even conceding that the US/EU could pressure Zelensky to the negotiating table, the Ukrainians would still fight the russians with every weapon available. Putin is carrying out a full-blown genocide (massacres, mass abduction of UKR children, destruction of UKR culture) in occupied territories. The Ukrainians have the motivation and will to fight - with out without our support. Withholding support from UKR in these circumstances, I suspect, would strongly backfire with the vast majority of American and EU citizens supporting the arming of UKR.

          As for your second point - that's exactly what Putin has been doing. There's a buildup of russian conscripts again in Belarus and UKR intelligence is warning that he will also call up 500,000 conscripts to go to the front lines. Yes, I think UKR is gaining the upper hand, slowly but surely, but as Stalin allegedly said, "quantity has a quality all of its own." These recruits could make attacking positions much more challenging and could launch massive human wave attacks like Iran did in the Iraq-Iran war.

          Finally, there is another reason I support UKR regaining its territory to the 1991 borders - if russia gains the territories it has seized, it would incentivize dictators to launch wars of conquest against American allies. Think PRC attacking Taiwan, DPRK attacking South Korea, etc. Putin's total defeat in UKR would set an example to our enemies that attacking our allies to seize their territory will end with no gains for them.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            If the Ukrainians were to choose to carry on the fight without US/EU support, then they would lose, period. Frankly, they aren't exactly guaranteed success even with our support, unless that support ramps up to levels the American (and most European) peoples will not endorse. Again, not trying to be a jerk here, just being clear about the situation. For that reason, I don't see any reason to think that the Ukrainians would refuse a peace treaty, if one were on the table, even if it included some territorial concessions.

            Regarding my second point, we are in agreement: sending raw and dispirited conscripts with questionable weaponry up against the motivated, experienced, and reasonably well-equipped Ukrainians is indeed what Putin has been doing. And yes, quantity-over-quality, and willingness to take massive losses, has served Russia well since at least 1812. My point wasn't that Putin couldn't do this, but rather that a couple weeks of ceasefire isn't going to make him any more able to do this - nor make it any more effective a strategy - than it already is.

            Lastly, coming back to my original point, Russia has already gotten rolled up once, and with minimal U.S. involvement. Russians gambled on a NATO non-response and they lost, bigly. Even if they were to turn and take the whole of Ukraine at this point, the only message any would-be invader could possibly take from Putin's misadventure is that going up against the U.S. will hurt... a LOT.

            I should note that I am not one of those "U.S. out of Ukraine" MAGA types, or even one of the "it's Europe's war" bean-counters. I am more than happy to keep pumping more money into Putin's embarrassment for as long as it continues to serve the American interests of diminishing Russia's ability and appetite for future wars, and warning off other would-be invaders. I just want to make it clear that "the victory of Ukraine", while a worthy Ukrainian goal, is not my goal. For now, the two intersect, but at some point they may not. An eventual compromise treaty between Ukraine and a much-chastened Russia would serve my needs just as well, even if Ukraine is not 100% satisfied with the outcome.

            Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Francesca

    Thanks!

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    LarryO

    Very well written. Thank you.

    Collapse
Load More