Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 23
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not sure if we've talked about this lately, but do we have any thoughts on what should be done with the Russia-Ukraine war at this point? Seems like as good a time as any to consider grand strategy, with Trump soon to take office in the US.
It's a little surprising that it's still going. It seems pretty clear to me at this point that Russia / Putin has no intention of stopping anytime soon. The sanctions regime that has been put in place seems to have caused them to return to self-sufficiency as much as it has hurt them. I'm doubtful that further attempts to sanction them harder will have any greater effect. The Ukrainians seem to have had impressive determination, especially during the first few months, but they don't seem to have the practical ability to eject the Russian troops, even with extremely generous donations of Western arms. I'm doubtful that's possible at all without large-scale Western intervention. There's also the possibility of allowing them to make more deep strikes into Russia with longer-ranged weapons, but I'm doubtful that anything along those lines can hit hard enough to either seriously disrupt their logistics or their will to fight, at least not without, or maybe even with, so many high-end western arms that it's basically obvious it's the US striking them directly, with all of the potential consequences that could entail.
From the perspective of an American, it's felt for a while like maybe it's time to wind down this conflict, or at least our involvement in it, as far as providing arms and assistance. Are we really accomplishing anything but getting more Ukrainians killed to little effect? And okay yeah, Russia is not our friend, but it's probably only to the United States' benefit to push them so far.
Does anyone have any different opinions? Does anyone see any realistic potential of forcing Russia back without a large-scale escalation that I'm doubtful Americans will accept? The European powers may be more determined to push Russia back, but do they have much practical ability without the US?
The eventual result will almost certainly be a ceasefire along the line of control with no official peace treaty or concessions by either side besides perhaps the Kursk salient by Ukraine. The best analogue would be the Korean War, where the last two years were spent in a stalemate with high casualties but no meaningful progress by either side, and the core issues remain unresolved to this day despite the cessation of major hostilities. I see no way to force Putin to accept such an outcome while he still thinks he has the upper hand and can slowly push the front forward in the Donbass, but presumably there will come a time in the next two years when he has to either declare a full mobilization, risking domestic unrest, or agree to a ceasefire.
If a Polish/Baltic expeditionary force were deployed to Ukraine with no restrictions, they could probably force Russia to withdraw from most of the territory they have occupied except for Crimea, but such action seems likely to anger the Russian public enough to accept full mobilization and escalation to a general European war against NATO. There are ways to do this with some plausible deniability e.g. "We had nothing to do with this ambassador, our soldiers just went AWOL and joined the Ukrainian foreign legion," but the more political cover they have the more likely they are to simply be fed into the Ukrainian meat grinder without the tools they need to make a real difference in the war ("They also stole our tanks and fighter jets and launched missiles at you from our territory" is a bit of a stretch). In either case, the US and other NATO nations would not be obligated to bail them out of a fight they started.
More options
Context Copy link
The best course of action is poisoning Putin at the peace talks and then forging a totally not anti-Chinese defensive pact with both countries.
Ukraine can probably be pressured into formally ceding five provinces and outlawing any form of non-condemnation of its Nazi-associated organizations.
Russia can be pressured into adopting NATO military standards in exchange for sanctions relief. This will ensure it's not ready for a military adventure even if it elects a revanchist a few years down the line.
I'm not a particular fan of Putin, but this would actually be one of the worst options, unless you have some alliance with a group of russian oligarchs ready to take over, in which case you're better of helping them do it another way. Putin is a dick, but he is mostly reasonable, he could easily be replaced by some worse, or Russia could devolve into chaos. You do not want one of the countries with the largest nuclear arsenal to devolve into chaos.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the important question is how do you interpret things like the sabotage to various undersea cables in the Baltic, break-ins at Finnish water plants, GPS jamming, bombs on cargo planes, etc? Maybe what we've seen is the extent of Russia's capabilities, relatively minor annoyances or distractions that Russia knows won't cross the line and require retaliation. Or maybe it's the tip of the iceberg, tests of more comprehensive attack systems that Putin plans to one day deploy fully against the West. Does he see himself more as the great crusader who will reclaim Russia's lost glory, or as the vanguard who will be content merely holding the line against the West without giving up too much more?
If Putin eventually wants an escalated war, we'll get one, and if that's the case then it's in the West's interest to keep him fighting in Ukraine where he can spend his country's blood and treasure with minimal risk to the rest of us non-Ukrainians in the meantime. But he does seem to be signaling that he'd accept peace under Trump, suggesting that he wants to withdraw but what he really needs is the cover to maintain face. We'll see soon enough, I guess. But if the war in Ukraine ends, or at least gets downgraded to Russia vs just Ukraine, what does Putin do next? Do we enter together into a new era of peace, or does that just let him redirect his efforts to his next goal? And where will that be?
More options
Context Copy link
As a pro-ukrainian european I‘ve warmed to a freezing of the conflict on something like the trump plan:
Zelensky should just accept trump's compromise and when putin likely rejects, enjoy increased american support. If putin accepts, the plan is to wait until he dies. It‘s unlikely he can mobilize his population and economy much further if there is no war on, so given some western support, ukraine can likely maintain enough strength not to be eaten bit by bit on the short timescale of putin‘s remaining life. Putin‘s also very unlikely to try anything else against nato if there‘s unfinished business/ a large ukrainian army waiting for an opportunity to reclaim their land behind a ceasefire line.
There's a bit of a revolving door, though, from Chechnya to Syria to Ukraine. Possibly gearing up for Libya next? If Putin needs a war to accomplish his domestic goals, he's shown he can generate one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link