Thomas Friedman says he hasn't written much about the war in Ukraine because the only place truly important events are taking place, or even could take place, is in Vladimir Putin's mind (NY Times). Because this war was Putin's own brainchild, without much support anywhere else,
Russia will be stopped in Ukraine, whether it’s winning or losing, only when Putin decides to stop.
Friedman concurs with most people in saying that Putin really thought his Plan A would work:
It’s now obvious that he thought he was going to waltz into Kyiv, seize it in a week, install a lackey as president, tuck Ukraine into his pocket and put to an end any further European Union, NATO or Western cultural expansion toward Russia. He would then cast his shadow across all of Europe.
That having failed, he has no Plan B. Hence, the grinding military stalemate. And Putin cannot simply walk away from this failed war because he fears this would lead to his overthrow; as Friedman lays out, the best way to lose power in Russia has for centuries been to lose a foreign war. Friedman turns to Putin biographer Leon Aron for more insight:
“There are now two ways for Putin to end this war he cannot win and cannot walk away from,” Aron said. “One is to continue until Ukraine is bled dry and/or the Ukraine fatigue sets in in the West.”Friedman:
And the other, he argued, “is to somehow force a direct confrontation with the U.S. — bring us to the precipice of an all-out strategic nuclear exchange — and then step back and propose to a scared West an overall settlement, which would include a neutral, disarmed Ukraine and his holding on to the Crimea and Donbas.”
It’s impossible to get into Putin’s head and predict his next move, but color me worried. Because what we do know, from Putin’s actions, is that he knows his Plan A has failed. And he will now do anything to produce a Plan B to justify the terrible losses that he has piled up in the name of a country where everybody talks and where defeated leaders don’t retire peacefully.
This is pretty much where I end up. I do see some hope that a major Ukrainian victory this spring and summer could change the equation, but honestly I am not optimistic. Winning big military victories is just hard, and Russia has been preparing all year to meet this offensive. Nor do I think Russia could really scare the US and Europe into making peace; with his military ground down by a year of fighting, Putin is too vulnerable to a US strike, and NATO is too ready to mount one.
More and more I suspect an eventual peace of exhaustion, leaving the situation highly unstable, with a good chance of more wars to come.
2 comments:
I've long thought that talk of Ukraine winning the war was a pipe-dream. There was and is simply no scenario I can imagine in which the Russians, let alone Putin, admit they are beaten. There are a whole variety of ways it could come about, but I think sooner or later we will have a shaky truce, lasting for years and subject to constant testing by Russia--all very much like Korea.
I'm not as sanguine about western staying-power. I think the Republicans as a whole--McConnell and some other senators aside--are a weak reed on this. If they win the presidency, for example, I don't think the policy would change overnight, but the era of Biden-style support would clearly be over. The substance would be less, and the tone would be publicly, let's say, impatient.
I think even US withdrawing support (43 bln in military aid) would not mean Ukraine losing, though it would mean Ukraine not winning - unless then other ocuntries would follow. UK provided 6,63 bn (euros) in military aid, my country 2,42, Netherlands 2,36 bln, Sweden 1,13 bln etc (Germany 3,57 but they would happily cut off the support) - UNLESS Russia would dramatically increase spending in this war and/or get support from e.g. China.
Damn, to think we were so much afraid of Russia just two years ago. Their status as formidable military power is now shaken beyond repair. Too bad they have nuclear weapons.
Post a Comment