Posted on 03/27/2023 8:07:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
We’re now into the second year of the war in Ukraine, and while support for Ukraine remains strong (if not support for endless military aid to them) we’re reaching the point where virtually everyone wants to see an end to the fighting. Or at least that’s what most of them say in public. The Wall Street Journal has reached the conclusion that Ukraine’s allies see a way that the war could be brought to an end. Or multiple ways. But the problem as they describe it, however, is that nobody has a specific plan to make it happen. Much hope rests on an expected Ukrainian counteroffensive in the spring, but even with all of the increasingly powerful military arms and equipment Zelensky continues to receive, few believe that he will be able to deliver enough of a punch to finish the job. (Subscription required)
Western leaders are beginning to have a clearer vision of how they hope the war in Ukraine will end. What is missing is any plan to make it happen.
The hope in Washington and European capitals is that a Ukrainian counteroffensive—boosted by Western tanks and other fresh weaponry—will punch a hole in Russia’s control of Ukrainian territory this spring.
In theory, that gives Kyiv’s forces such a battlefield advantage that Russian President Vladimir Putin is nudged into peace talks where the Kremlin cedes at least the territory it has taken since the invasion in February 2022. Then Ukraine is free to anchor its future in the west, and a defeated and diminished Mr. Putin can face the wrath of his own people.
The scenario described above relies on a number of assumptions and is lacking in key specifics. It assumes a Ukrainian spring counteroffensive of ferocious proportions that “punches a hole” in the Russian lines at the eastern end of the country. But the Ukrainians have already punched several holes into Russian-held territory. That hasn’t seemed to deter Vladimir Putin at all and he continues to send conscripts into the fray while blasting the countryside with rockets.
Mention is made of “western tanks and other fresh weaponry.” That would certainly add some punch to Ukraine’s capabilities, but the delivery of any significant number of tanks still appears to be well in the future, possibly not until next year. And almost certainly not quickly enough for a spring offensive. And Vladimir Putin has shown no signs of suggesting a ceasefire where he gives back even the new land Russia has conquered over the past year.
Perhaps that is why the WSJ analysis suggests that the far more likely path will involve “a war of attrition that lasts until one side is so defeated or exhausted that it calls a halt without realizing its ultimate aims.” This is clearly a reference to Ukraine since there is no scenario where the Russian Federation is “defeated” unless Ukraine plans on invading Russian territory, likely triggering the use of tactical nuclear weapons. And what are Ukraine’s “ultimate aims” in this scenario? Ejecting the Russian forces from all of its territories, of course. Or at least all of the territory it controlled prior to the invasion.
It’s also worth noting that the WSJ points out that the “war of attrition” scenario would almost certainly be measured in years, not weeks or months. How long will the patience (not to mention the pocketbooks) of Ukraine’s allies last? Yes, Joe Biden and most of the swamp dwellers in Washington continue to say “as long as it takes.” But what if it takes years?
The WSJ then raises the prickly question of what should be done about Putin even if the war does shut down in some fashion.
There is broad agreement that Ukraine ought to be given the means to deter a future Russian invasion, either as part of NATO or in some kind of pact with the alliance.
But French President Emmanuel Macron and some allies have said they are wary of humiliating Russia and want the West to offer Ukraine security assurances that Russia can live with. Others instead want to see Russia’s military permanently degraded.
It’s a rare day when you’ll hear me say this, but Macron is probably making a valid point. If Putin is “humiliated” too much on the world stage, he will become increasingly likely to do something erratic. And as far as making Ukraine part of NATO to deter future attacks goes, has everyone forgotten that talk of Ukraine potentially joining NATO was one of Putin’s key complaints in the first place?
Everyone quoted in the article seems to agree that Putin believes that time is on his side. The Prime Minister of Poland notes that the United States (at least as long as Joe Biden is in charge) will refuse to allow Ukraine to fall. But he continues by saying that he is more worried about his Western European partners and friends “because they are less patient.” When he says something like that, we should probably pay attention.
I’ve tried to game this situation out in my head more times than I can count. And it’s becoming increasingly clear (at least to me) that there’s one reason that nobody is proposing a comprehensive solution that ends this war with Ukraine achieving “victory.” It’s because no such solution exists. And if that’s the case, a more realistic plan will be required and that may mean that Russia doesn’t walk away empty-handed.
NATO's stated objective is, and has been, regime change. They want to install their puppet in Russia. I don't know where you got the 'invaded much less occupying Russia' from.
What did Putin accomplish by invading Ukraine vis a vis NATO?
He held back at first, thinking to drive them to the negotiating table. Russians were angry he wasn't wiping them out because they see NATO/Ukraine intentions for regime change as an existential threat to Russia, and it is indeed such a threat. So Russia engaged in a war of attrition. He knows he has the capacity to produce his own munitions and that NATO had let most of their capacity atrophy under the protection of the United States.
First he burned through regular Ukrainian troops. He flattened power grid etc. He basically has been fighting, and draining, NATO. NATO ran out of ammunition and cannot resupply quickly. NATO has thrown resources into the Ukraine to the point they depleted themselves. By reserving troops and manufacturing ammo at a far greater capacity, Russia is, despite it's losses, winning the war of attrition against NATO. Months ago the Ukrainian military leader said he asked Britain for X number of bullets and his contact said, "That's more than we fired in all of WWI." NATO doesn't have vast reserves - it's throwing hardware, ammo and troops from other nations into the fire at a furious mix. As I said, despite its losses, Russia is winning this war and will have fought/killed/depleted resources that would have otherwise been used in NATO's continued efforts to pave the world with it's handpicked puppets, including Russia.
All he did was in effect EXPANDED NATO ( Finland just entered NATO, and Sweden will probably be next ).
News for you - NATO has world dominion in mind. NATO intends to expand indefinitely. Also, Finland and Sweden are not militarily powerful re the war. NATO always has had in mind a unified one world administration and it rolls on regardless of what Putin does or does not do. Right now, Putin's defanging his most agressive enemies.
RE: NATO’s stated objective is, and has been, regime change. They want to install their puppet in Russia. I don’t know where you got the ‘invaded much less occupying Russia’ from.
I don’t believe that for a moment. Why would the NATO countries, most of whom are members of the EU want Putin to fall when they have always trade with Russia and have been importing their oil for decades?
If any they FEAR Russia because of her history of regime change ( there’s that word again ) in Eastern Europe and their most recent incursions into Georgia and Crimea.
RE: So Russia engaged in a war of attrition. He knows he has the capacity to produce his own munitions and that NATO had let most of their capacity atrophy under the protection of the United States.
So, with that, you are simply telling us that Russia isn’t going to stop at Ukraine but will continue after that to other Eastern European countries including the former Soviet States.
Why should NATO allow that to happen?
RE: News for you - NATO has world dominion in mind. NATO intends to expand indefinitely.
Errrr... Maybe it’s Russia who wants to expand indefinitely and NATO has to stop this plan of expansion.
NATO expands for a reason, and that reason is an aggressive Russia ( as seen by what she did under Putin the past 2 decades and still is doing now ).
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Everyone thinks they have a "solution" to end the war in Ukraine but nobody has a specific plan to make it happen, SeekAndFind wrote: RE: NATO’s stated objective is, and has been, regime change. They want to install their puppet in Russia. I don’t know where you got the ‘invaded much less occupying Russia’ from.
I don’t believe that for a moment. Why would the NATO countries, most of whom are members of the EU want Putin to fall when they have always trade with Russia and have been importing their oil for decades?
If any they FEAR Russia because of her history of regime change ( there’s that word again ) in Eastern Europe and their most recent incursions into Georgia and Crimea.
RE: So Russia engaged in a war of attrition. He knows he has the capacity to produce his own munitions and that NATO had let most of their capacity atrophy under the protection of the United States.
So, with that, you are simply telling us that Russia isn’t going to stop at Ukraine but will continue after that to other Eastern European countries including the former Soviet States.
Why should NATO allow that to happen?
RE: News for you - NATO has world dominion in mind. NATO intends to expand indefinitely.
Errrr... Maybe it’s Russia who wants to expand indefinitely and NATO has to stop this plan of expansion.
NATO expands for a reason, and that reason is an aggressive Russia ( as seen by what she did under Putin the past 2 decades and still is doing now ).
Russia wants to remove NATO's capacity to force regime change in Russia and install their puppet. He does not intend to fight everywhere and everyone in world dominion. NATO/UN/WEF is world dominion territory. Russia wants it's sovereignty and NATO wants to take it away. If they can install their puppet, they can trade with Russia all they want and the oil and other resources would be NATO's to divide as it will.
NATO expands for a reason - to gather all nations under it's control. UN/NATO/WEF are all working to make one global society. Russia doesn't want to be ruled by that globalist agenda - it wants its sovereignty.
In your dreams nitwit. Go get a check-up from the neck up.....are you 12 years old?
All you’re capable of is cut and paste and name calling. This last post of yours is a jumble of stock answers. Gotta be boring to be you.
RE: Russia is, despite it’s losses, winning the war of attrition against NATO.
Listen, I am not interested in the details of this war or who is winning at this moment in time or even who will eventually win. I am not a military strategists and the ebb and flow and reports coming from the battlefield keep changing depending on whose propaganda one listens to.
I am more interested in the MORALITY of this war — WHO IS IN THE WRONG HERE.
Putin wants you to believe that it’s NATO’s fault. He frequently has claimed (including again in an address to the nation as this invasion commenced) that NATO expansion—not 190,000 Russian soldiers and sailors mobilized on Ukraine’s borders—is the central driver of this crisis.
“the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault,” the narrative of Russian backlash against NATO expansion has become a dominant framework for explaining—if not justifying—Moscow’s ongoing war against Ukraine.
By this telling from Putin, the specter of Ukraine’s NATO membership points both to the cause of the conflict and its solution: take membership off the table for Ukraine, so the argument goes, and war will be prevented.
This argument has two flaws, one about history and one about Putin’s thinking.
First, NATO expansion has not been a constant source of tension between Russia and the West, but a variable. Over the last thirty years, the salience of the issue has risen and fallen not primarily because of the waves of NATO expansion, but due instead to waves of democratic expansion in Eurasia. In a very clear pattern, Moscow’s complaints about NATO spike after democratic breakthroughs. While the tragic invasions and occupations of Georgia and Ukraine have secured Putin a de facto veto over their NATO aspirations, since the alliance would never admit a country under partial occupation by Russian forces, this fact undermines Putin’s claim that the current invasion is aimed at NATO membership. He has already blocked NATO expansion for all intents and purposes, thereby revealing that he wants something far more significant in Ukraine today: THE END OF UKRAINE’s DEMOCRACY AND THE RETURN OF THEIR SUBJUGATION.
And here’s the second flaw in Outin’s reasoning: Because the primary threat to Putin and his autocratic regime is democracy, not NATO, that perceived threat would not magically disappear with a moratorium on NATO expansion.
Putin would not stop seeking to undermine democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine, Georgia, or the region as whole if NATO stopped expanding. As long as citizens in free countries exercise their democratic rights to elect their own leaders and set their own course in domestic and foreign politics, Putin will keep them in his crosshairs.
Just look back in the 1990’s .... When President Boris Yeltsin agreed to sign the Russia-NATO Founding Act in 1997, Russia and the alliance codified into this agreement a comprehensive agenda of cooperation. THERE WAS NO INTENTION FOR ANY REGIME CHANGE THEN.
Heck, In 2000 while visiting London, Putin, then serving as acting Russian president, even suggested that Russia could join NATO someday:
SEE HERE FOR HIS QUOTE:
[COPY AND PASTE]
“Why not? Why not … I do not rule out such a possibility… in the case that Russia’s interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner. Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe … Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy.” Why would Putin want to join an alliance allegedly threatening Russia?
With that attitude, why would NATO want a regime change in Russia? I am as of now, UNCONVINCED with your analysis.
And spare me the “Russia is winning” remarks, I am not interested in that at all. For that, debate the military and war analysts.
rE: Russia wants to remove NATO’s capacity to force regime change in Russia and install their puppet.
Nope, NATO wants to STOP RUSSIA from its expansionary tendencies as PROVEN by what Russia did the past 15 years.
Regime change was NOT in NATO’s plan before until Putin showed his true colors. Now alas, perhaps regime change has to happen in order for this war to end.
You are a head case.
Retreat Russia, go home. Done
Balony! You are just another worshiper and supporter of Biden and Soros.
One people start to blowing stuff up and killing each other, it’s just hard to quit.
Putin was OK and I couldn't care less about him. But when he invaded Ukraine, I turned 180 degrees. Then I knew this was the old USSR again.
It’s the Russian way. Kill kill kill, Vietnam, Korea, early China. Kill and spread killing.
That’ll get backlash for me, but good!
Putin’s clown, pfffft
One side surrenders. But as long as “The Big Guy” and his pals get their cut the war will continue indefinitely.
Exactly right, and while I agree with all 7 points, I think just #6 alone and the Ukes would capitulate in a week… the Europeans don’t care unless we lead and do all the heavy lifting, plus they’ed rather buy cheap gas from Russians again.
You’re very close to the complete truth.
Whoever controls Eastern Europe rules the heartland.
Whoever rules the heartland rules the world island.
Whoever rules the world island rules the world.
Europe, Asia, and some say Africa as well, make up the world island. It is the Eastern European approach to the heartland that rightly has Putin thinking his country is facing an existential threat. It isn’t Russia threatening NATO, but NATO threatening Russia.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia Albania Montenegro, Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, are all Eastern Europe countries.
How many of these countries are NATO added since 1999?
It isn’t Russian aggression, at all, but NATO’s, and the Ukraine IS the final showdown.
This has been the US policy since Clinton: control and power over eastern europe, no matter the cost in innocent blood and human misery.
There will be a world war if DC and London don’t back off.
I hope and pray I am wrong, but I don’t see any of the neocon/neoliberals doing that.
No. You are wrong. The following post details the truth nicely.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4141343/posts?page=38#38
Eastern European countries only join NATO because they understand History, and so are (correctly) afraid of being attacked and invaded by Russia
if Russia could just stop attacking and invading its neighbors, there would be no more need for NATO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.