I recently visited what Europeans call Central Europe: Krakow, Budapest, Vienna, and Prague. While I was there someone said, “Every political or historical event is a human one”. I can’t comment on the military aspect but I saw and heard the people there.
In all four cities, there were Ukrainian flags on buildings, some with messages like “Hands off Ukraine Putin”. Ukrainian rallies were held in the large Market Square in Krakow. People were begging for help they will not get: “NATO Close the sky/People don’t want to die.” The refugees had terrible stories to tell. We had lunch in a country inn near Auschwitz and were told all 100+ rooms were occupied by refugees. In my Prague hotel there was a children’s play area with toys in a lobby area by the elevators. I flew out of the Prague airport. The entrance to it had a Czech flag and a Ukrainian one flying side by side.
I got the impression that some people, especially the Poles, are not certain they can rely on their allies if they are attacked. I was told that they had mutual defense treaties with Britain and France in 1939, yet they were liberated by the Soviets who then stayed for 45 years. People there talk as if the Communist era was a dark time which they don’t want to relive. (Someone pointed proudly to the first McDonald’s in Krakow, which is revered as a symbol of the fall of Communism.) They know what they are fighting for and against. I believe many people in that area consider that the Ukrainians are fighting the Russians so the rest of us don’t have to.
If anyone was supporting Putin and Russia, they were keeping quiet.
I should add that I met a man in Vienna who pointed out that parts of the Ukraine were in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, "but you don't see us trying to get it back".
Thanks for writing this, I can't believe how easily we are wimping out. Bullies like Russia do not stop until they are stopped. They don't care. I thought one of the lessons we learned in WWII is that appeasement doesn't work. Are we going to wait til they invade Poland?
I suspect you'll get the same loony band of Putin-Versteher that pollute the comments every time you post on this topic, usually the ones sporting Taibbi, Greenwald, Beijer or some other far left subscription. Might be better to make these posts paid to keep the pollution level low.
The most hilarious comments are the ones that say "don't humiliate Putin, we have to care about his tender feelings." As if it's on the west to make him feel good about his war of aggression. The reason most of those appeasement minded op-ed writers tiptoe around it: because it is still thankfully seen as bad form to demand Ukraine surrender for someone's ideological beliefs in polite society. The only ones who promote this are the far ends of the horseshoe.
I've been on team Ukraine from the beginning but people have to realize that offensive military operations are extremely hard (as we learned watching Russia flounder for the last 100 days) relative to defensive operations. The Russians are now dug in and have a firepower advantage. The question is whether to equip Ukraine for a decisive offensive campaign. That will likely require at least 9-12 months of further mobilization and training by the Ukrainians and much more equipment support of armored vehicles and fast mover aircraft (which is exactly why they're asking for those things). The artillery is great to help them hold the line in Donbass, but offense will require the ability to maneuver. The question is will Europe be willing to endure a cold winter while the Ukies prep for an offensive some time next year.
If the US starts pressuring Ukraine to give up its territory to end the on-going armed conflict, both Russia and Europe will begin to doubt the US commitment in Europe, which can have far-ranging consequences.
Suppose the US pressures Ukraine to make a deal with Russia. Russia takes some territory, but decides that further invasion of Ukraine is impossible. Instead they opt for a small operation in the Baltic states. After all, if the US can't be arsed to send weapons to Ukraine, why would send troops the Baltic states?
This places the US in a bind. Either the US and Europe go into major war with Russia, or NATO collapses and the US-Europe alliance is broken. The latter will have huge consequences with regards to China. Why should Europe help the US in their struggle with China, if the US doesn't want to help Europe in theirs with Russia? Maybe it's better for Europe to ally with China, to help put pressure on Russia?
This all seems so obvious that to require such an article feels ludicrous.
However, it is required because this seems like a minority view here. it seems like the entire public policy and elite media world has gone insane. Is this a reaction to Domino Theory from the Cold War? Or is this just inconvenient in taking away attention from everyone else’s pet political causes?
Right on, Noah. The minimum which the Ukraine could or should accept is a return to the status quo ante, with third parties guaranteeing their borders against future Russian aggression. Ideally, m the Donbas should be fully returned to Ukrainian control. Crimea is more difficult, since Russia does have historic claims there. However, since it represents a bottleneck in Black Sea shipping for both countries, some sort of neutralization might be plausible.
The appeasement punditry is insufferable. If Ukraine cedes more territory to Russia, that just sets them up for the next invasion. You would have to be asleep since 2014 not to realize that by now.
That being said, brokered cease fires might be a respite, but even then Putin has shown that he has no intention of honoring those beyond what might be useful for the Russian military to re-position and re-supply.
Russia has to lose if Ukraine is going to have any security at all, IMO,
I agree with almost everything you have written in this article except your point that fighting a proxy war with Russia by supplying Ukraine with weapons will prevent world war 3 when there is a risk of the exact opposite. There is a possibility that the current conflict with Russia which has an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons may escalate if Putin is cornered and decides to launch nukes. This risk has to be part of the analysis when deciding if it's worth prolonging the conflict or pushing both parties towards a negotiated settlement. That does not mean that Ukraine doesn't have the right to defend itself against a brutal illegal invasion of their country but while I hope that they can defend and retake lost territory the sheer numerical imbalance in arms between both sides (the west has not sent nearly enough weapons to allow the Ukrainians to go on the offensive) this conflict could turn into years of protracted brutal WW1 trench/artillery destruction where tens of thousands of more people perish. I think the only hope beyond some sort of internal revolt in Russia which seems unlikely is for Russia to take over the portions of the Donbas they control and for them to get out of the rest of Ukraine as I don't believe the Ukrainians will ever accept peace until they reclaim the southern portion of their country.
I wish you would provide a steelman of the opposing view. Which, as I'd summarize it, is this: the longer this war continues, the likelier escalation between the US and Russia becomes. (It's cumulative! Only has to happen once.)
Dragging the conflict out reduces the odds of WWIII through some pathways, as you've mentioned, and raises the odds through other pathways. How that nets out is not clear. But just waving away the most serious near-term risk is not a good way to look at things.
Are you the same guy who said at the start of this war that the valiant to last man defense of Snake Island might prove to be the defining image of this war ? I think you might be right. You need to double check your thinking after falling for that clearly orchestrated bit of propaganda.
I recently visited what Europeans call Central Europe: Krakow, Budapest, Vienna, and Prague. While I was there someone said, “Every political or historical event is a human one”. I can’t comment on the military aspect but I saw and heard the people there.
In all four cities, there were Ukrainian flags on buildings, some with messages like “Hands off Ukraine Putin”. Ukrainian rallies were held in the large Market Square in Krakow. People were begging for help they will not get: “NATO Close the sky/People don’t want to die.” The refugees had terrible stories to tell. We had lunch in a country inn near Auschwitz and were told all 100+ rooms were occupied by refugees. In my Prague hotel there was a children’s play area with toys in a lobby area by the elevators. I flew out of the Prague airport. The entrance to it had a Czech flag and a Ukrainian one flying side by side.
I got the impression that some people, especially the Poles, are not certain they can rely on their allies if they are attacked. I was told that they had mutual defense treaties with Britain and France in 1939, yet they were liberated by the Soviets who then stayed for 45 years. People there talk as if the Communist era was a dark time which they don’t want to relive. (Someone pointed proudly to the first McDonald’s in Krakow, which is revered as a symbol of the fall of Communism.) They know what they are fighting for and against. I believe many people in that area consider that the Ukrainians are fighting the Russians so the rest of us don’t have to.
If anyone was supporting Putin and Russia, they were keeping quiet.
I should add that I met a man in Vienna who pointed out that parts of the Ukraine were in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, "but you don't see us trying to get it back".
Oh come now. I think we should give Putin something for all this effort.
A novelty t-shirt, perhaps? Maybe a matching mug? "I invaded Ukraine and all I got..."
Thanks for writing this, I can't believe how easily we are wimping out. Bullies like Russia do not stop until they are stopped. They don't care. I thought one of the lessons we learned in WWII is that appeasement doesn't work. Are we going to wait til they invade Poland?
Relevant: We really, really don't want this war to still be going on in 2025, when DJ Trump may again be president.
Not a point I've seen discussed anywhere, for some reason.
I want to ask all the appeasers if returning Ukrainian children that were taken to Russia should be a condition for peace.
I suspect you'll get the same loony band of Putin-Versteher that pollute the comments every time you post on this topic, usually the ones sporting Taibbi, Greenwald, Beijer or some other far left subscription. Might be better to make these posts paid to keep the pollution level low.
The most hilarious comments are the ones that say "don't humiliate Putin, we have to care about his tender feelings." As if it's on the west to make him feel good about his war of aggression. The reason most of those appeasement minded op-ed writers tiptoe around it: because it is still thankfully seen as bad form to demand Ukraine surrender for someone's ideological beliefs in polite society. The only ones who promote this are the far ends of the horseshoe.
I've been on team Ukraine from the beginning but people have to realize that offensive military operations are extremely hard (as we learned watching Russia flounder for the last 100 days) relative to defensive operations. The Russians are now dug in and have a firepower advantage. The question is whether to equip Ukraine for a decisive offensive campaign. That will likely require at least 9-12 months of further mobilization and training by the Ukrainians and much more equipment support of armored vehicles and fast mover aircraft (which is exactly why they're asking for those things). The artillery is great to help them hold the line in Donbass, but offense will require the ability to maneuver. The question is will Europe be willing to endure a cold winter while the Ukies prep for an offensive some time next year.
There's more at stake than Ukraine.
If the US starts pressuring Ukraine to give up its territory to end the on-going armed conflict, both Russia and Europe will begin to doubt the US commitment in Europe, which can have far-ranging consequences.
Suppose the US pressures Ukraine to make a deal with Russia. Russia takes some territory, but decides that further invasion of Ukraine is impossible. Instead they opt for a small operation in the Baltic states. After all, if the US can't be arsed to send weapons to Ukraine, why would send troops the Baltic states?
This places the US in a bind. Either the US and Europe go into major war with Russia, or NATO collapses and the US-Europe alliance is broken. The latter will have huge consequences with regards to China. Why should Europe help the US in their struggle with China, if the US doesn't want to help Europe in theirs with Russia? Maybe it's better for Europe to ally with China, to help put pressure on Russia?
This all seems so obvious that to require such an article feels ludicrous.
However, it is required because this seems like a minority view here. it seems like the entire public policy and elite media world has gone insane. Is this a reaction to Domino Theory from the Cold War? Or is this just inconvenient in taking away attention from everyone else’s pet political causes?
Right on, Noah. The minimum which the Ukraine could or should accept is a return to the status quo ante, with third parties guaranteeing their borders against future Russian aggression. Ideally, m the Donbas should be fully returned to Ukrainian control. Crimea is more difficult, since Russia does have historic claims there. However, since it represents a bottleneck in Black Sea shipping for both countries, some sort of neutralization might be plausible.
The appeasement punditry is insufferable. If Ukraine cedes more territory to Russia, that just sets them up for the next invasion. You would have to be asleep since 2014 not to realize that by now.
That being said, brokered cease fires might be a respite, but even then Putin has shown that he has no intention of honoring those beyond what might be useful for the Russian military to re-position and re-supply.
Russia has to lose if Ukraine is going to have any security at all, IMO,
headline I just saw on TPM....
Talking Points Memo
Putin Suggests Russia Is Entering A Period Of Indefinite Expansion
Josh Kovensky - 9h ago
I agree with almost everything you have written in this article except your point that fighting a proxy war with Russia by supplying Ukraine with weapons will prevent world war 3 when there is a risk of the exact opposite. There is a possibility that the current conflict with Russia which has an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons may escalate if Putin is cornered and decides to launch nukes. This risk has to be part of the analysis when deciding if it's worth prolonging the conflict or pushing both parties towards a negotiated settlement. That does not mean that Ukraine doesn't have the right to defend itself against a brutal illegal invasion of their country but while I hope that they can defend and retake lost territory the sheer numerical imbalance in arms between both sides (the west has not sent nearly enough weapons to allow the Ukrainians to go on the offensive) this conflict could turn into years of protracted brutal WW1 trench/artillery destruction where tens of thousands of more people perish. I think the only hope beyond some sort of internal revolt in Russia which seems unlikely is for Russia to take over the portions of the Donbas they control and for them to get out of the rest of Ukraine as I don't believe the Ukrainians will ever accept peace until they reclaim the southern portion of their country.
I wish you would provide a steelman of the opposing view. Which, as I'd summarize it, is this: the longer this war continues, the likelier escalation between the US and Russia becomes. (It's cumulative! Only has to happen once.)
Dragging the conflict out reduces the odds of WWIII through some pathways, as you've mentioned, and raises the odds through other pathways. How that nets out is not clear. But just waving away the most serious near-term risk is not a good way to look at things.
Are you the same guy who said at the start of this war that the valiant to last man defense of Snake Island might prove to be the defining image of this war ? I think you might be right. You need to double check your thinking after falling for that clearly orchestrated bit of propaganda.
You have a very smudgy telescope.