Why the west may have to offer Putin a way out
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
I think that unwraps the article
Ukraine and Russia are the parties engaged in this war, and with Ukraine on the defense their only options are to continue to defend or to capitulate, and for Russia to declare victory and withdraw, to continue to wage war or to raise the stakes.
'The West' has nothing to offer at the moment, other than reducing the sanctions which would only embolden Putin.
To deny Ukraine agency is to add insult to injury.
Ukraine is indeed a sovereign nation, but the US has full control of the arms flowing in, its ability to fight, and Ukraines NATO aspirations.
The US has the power to decide if Ukraine stands or falls. The US also has the power to to give Russia some or all of what it wants. Ukraine has very little say.
This is incorrect.
> its ability to fight
This is incorrect
> Ukraines NATO aspirations
This is irrelevant.
> The US has the power to decide if Ukraine stands or falls
The US has the power to decide if it wants to help Ukraine beyond what it has already done, and it has the power to decide if it wants to stop giving the help that it is giving right now. But it does not have the power to decide whether Ukraine stands or falls, that power lies first and foremost - unfortunately - with Russia and after that with Ukraine itself.
> The US also has the power to to give Russia some or all of what it wants.
No, it doesn't have that power at all.
> Ukraine has very little say.
That may be so but you have a pretty weird idea of how war works, and you seem to forget that Europe has a fairly large amount of influence in the region as well.
>This is irrelevant.
>>The US also has the power to to give Russia some or all of what it wants.
>No, it doesn't have that power at all.
This is literally one of Russias demands, which the US has the power to unilaterally grant or deny.
US arms, money, and support are necessary if Ukraine has any chance of long term success. NATO will always fall in line with US demands.
Again, incorrect. Why do you keep saying stuff that is factually incorrect?
> US arms, money, and support are necessary if Ukraine has any chance of long term success.
They would certainly help, but they are not the only kind of support that Ukraine is receiving.
> NATO will always fall in line with US demands.
This too is incorrect. The US has not asked Ukraine to 'join NATO', it has been the other way around. Russia has been told in no uncertain terms that it isn't up to them whether or not Ukraine joins NATO, but that this is up to NATO (and it's various partners).
The US is obviously a formidable player in international politics and in many ways and on many fronts it is the only player. And currently several partners in NATO have wildly different viewpoints on how to deal best with the war in Ukraine, but one thing they all seem to agree on is simply that as long as the war is limited to Ukrainian territory that they will not intervene directly. That said, NATO, and in particular Poland is already involved in quite a few ways and their decisions have a very large effect on the outcome.
This stopped being about Ukraine vs Russia a while ago, the question that matters is whether or not it will spiral out of control and pull the rest of the Eastern European countries into it and how if that happens NATO will respond. And for all of the statements that have been made the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Personally I hope that Ukraine with continued assistance from Europe and the US will hold out long enough that someone with a bit more sense will seize power in Russia, which is the best possible outcome.
Failing that you may get to a point where you regret living in this particular decade. Who does or does not join NATO is utterly irrelevant compared to the stakes, and Russia can demand all it wants, as long as it does not withdraw (or at least declares a ceasefire) from Ukraine the crisis is deepening by the day.
Yes, Ukraine applied. The US and other NATO nations can decide if they are considered or not. The US and other NATO nations can decide if they are accepted or not. Ukraine can apply or not apply, but beyond this the US and NATO have all the power to decide the outcome. When Ukraine did apply in ~2008, many NATO countries including Germany and France did not want to expand east as it would provoke Russia and increase the risk of war in Europe. Using it's formidable leverage, the US convinced NATO to entertain Ukraine's application.
The US and other NATO countries still have the power to change policy with respect to Ukraine, and state that it will never be granted membership. The US could unilaterally do this today if they wished Ukraine to have a neutral status.
The parent article askes what the west can offer to bring peace and obtain a Russian withdrawal. This is certainly one such option that is technically possible (if unpopular).
From the US perspective, regime change in Russia is attractive, but every day that goes by Ukrainians die.
This is no longer just a war of arms, it is a war of clocks: Putin's time is running out and Ukraine's time is running out, the question who has the longer time on their clock and that will likely determine the outcome. The West has just drastically shortened the time on Putin's clock while at the same time extending the Ukrainian clock substantially. To reverse that trend so that Russia can have its win seems unlikely and any other token wins (such as Ukraine 'never' joining NATO, which by itself is a pretty dumb thing to ask for as a settlement because that wasn't happening anyway, and besides that's none of Russia's business) are going to be insufficient to explain to the rest of the Russians why they will likely go hungry for the next couple of years and why they won't be able to go abroad.
Make no mistake: Russia has made itself into a Pariah state and it will take more than some token concession to get back to 'normal'.
>West doesn't have anything that it can give Russia to withdraw
The west absolutely does have something it can give Russia, This is indisputable. One can argue over if this would be enough to secure withdrawal or not. One can argue if it is wise to give something to Russia.
> The US does not control who goes into NATO other than that they can say 'no' (like everybody else).
Correct, Saying "no" is control and this is something that the US can promise to Russia. Russia asked the US several times for this explicitly before the war, threatening to invade if they didn't get it.
>This is no longer just a war of arms, it is a war of clocks:
This may be entirely true, I am not arguing that it isn't the case. This is independent of the question of if the US and west can give concessions.
>any other token wins (such as Ukraine 'never' joining NATO, which by itself is a pretty dumb thing to ask for as a settlement because that wasn't happening anyway
This is not factually true. In 2021 NATO declared verbatim that Ukraine would become part of NATO and its process would proceed. People can debate of if this was wise or not. Obviously Russia does does not get a vote on NATO decisions, and I'm not saying that it does. This does not negate the fact that in the real world, Russia has very strong opinions on it. A maniac with a gun doesn't have a legal right to shoot someone, but that does not mean that they cant do it!
>Make no mistake: Russia has made itself into a Pariah state and it will take more than some token concession to get back to 'normal'.
I never said otherwise.
Here is an article I think is insightful to some of the process to joining NATO: hit the link:
What it leaves out is that in 2021 NATO reaffirmed that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP)", which is the most traction on the topic since 2008.[1]
The idea that Biden has grown skeptical of expanding U.S. military commitments is farcical in this context. At the same time leading up to the war, the US was providing more military aid and training to Ukraine than ever.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm
>Both Germany and France have historically blocked Ukraines attempt to join.
This is not factually true. Joining NATO is a multi step process. No Vote has ever been held on Ukraine joining. Several votes have been held on if Ukraine can progress closer to being a member. In each case Germany and France initially blocked the step, and then later accepted under pressure from the US.
The first was in 2008 when NATO decided if Ukraine could start the process.
In 2016, Ukraine was granted a NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programmes and Trust Funds.
In 2018, Ukraine was officially given an aspiring member status.
2021 NATO reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member.
In each step, unanimous consent was achieved after initial protest from NATO members.
Full membership was probably decades out, but starting around 2014, the US was gifting significant arms to Ukraine, stationing troops in the country, and training their military.