an object in motion remains in motion
war termination
#thezenoflight
AMB James Smith educates us about contemporary Saudi Arabia day after tomorrow, 19 July at 5-6 pm Eastern. I hope you can dial in.
Former President Trump explained in a FOX interview that he could end the war in Ukraine in fewer than 24 hours. The war approaches 17 months’ duration as we reach the 24th of this month, hardly an investment either side will likely dismiss easily by either Russia or Ukraine and its supporters.
Instead, it’s worth asking what would it take to conclude that conflict? Turns out war termination, as it’s called, is a tough subject for everyone. If you think about any conflict, it rarely ends easily as adversaries become more invested in their positions because of fearing that the commitments made were in vain. No leaders in any country anywhere are prone to admitting poor judgment; the ramifications of such an admission can be pretty widespread.
But, how do conflicts like Ukraine end? What are the calculations at work?
President Zelenskyy is on record that he will not surrender an inch of his national territory to Putin’s army. With Putin proclaiming that Ukraine is not a real country but a misrepresentation of Russia’s history governing this area, the idea of national territory begins to show the importance of international recognition. Zelenskyy’s war aim is to recover all of the territory Ukraine governed prior to February 2022 when Russian forces seized land.
Does he also mean recovering the Crimean peninsula which his country governed before Putin seized it nine years ago? Russia’s Navy cherishes that location to access the Black Sea. For a nation with its major ports in Europe limited by ice in the winter (unless global warming is a Russian plot to free Archangel and other Baltic ports from weather-driven limitations), the facilities in Crimea remain highly desirable.
Beyond recovering lands seized, what sorts of guarantees will the Kyiv government need to stop its actions against Russia? Would anyone believe any promises that Putin, if forced into them, made?
In U.S. history, the role of unconditional surrender has been a central part of conflict ending. Famously, Ulysses Grant illustrated painfully during the Civil War that Confederate forces could set no conditions upon that devastating conflict ending in 1865. Similarly in 1945, the United States and its allies set all of the ends with regard to both Germany and Japan rather than negotiations.
Unconditional surrender requires absolute defeat of the adversary; neither Kyiv nor Moscow is anywhere near that point right now.
Why would Ukraine believe Putin if he made promises? In turn, Putin blames western expansion of NATO for exacerbating distrust so no much hope on the idea of bilateral or facilitated negotiations.
Most importantly, no evidence whatsoever indicates that Putin is anywhere near ready to end his invasion because the basic premise he has—that Ukraine is an integral and unequivocable part of Russia—remains central to his thinking. He sees no incentive or reason to end his quest to absorb the 43 million people of its neighbour. He clearly believes that he has mass to win—mass of military force, population, and history (convoluted as his understanding may be)—over a west he still hopes will tire of supporting Ukraine.
In short, until one of the parties tires of the conflict, it appears the conflict will continue unabated. Neither government sees its objectives completed nor, in fact, close to achievement.
Would regime change in Moscow or Kyiv end the conflict? Only if successor leader agreed to the position of the adversary but that seems unlikely in either case. While Zelenskyy proves himself an adept politician (only five years ago he was a standup comedian), it is probable that the nationalist ardour would infuse any other leader although it’s hard to see anyone more able to bring the west into supporting his nation.
Americans tend to afix blame to an individual, beliving that person’s absnse would help reduce tensions but would that be true in this case? Is regime change really part of a meaningful strategy to end conflict or is it just one authoritarian purusing aims following those of his predecessor?
It is seductive to dream of a replacement for Putin but ultra-nationalist forces still populate the Russian political elite as Vladimir does. The idea those forces would allow a radically less utranationalist leader seems fa-fetched to me.
In short, all of us need think about what it would take to ed the conflict in Ukraine. It will be a tough slog to some decisive point. Unless you have better ideas?
Leaders pursue what they see as their national interests, often engaging in heavhour that starts a cycle of violence extremely hard to break. Neither Russia nor Ukraine will listen to much cajoling for the same of peace, I fear.
Beautiful flowers as we did our Eastport walkabout this morning. If the world were only so simple!Fin