Sam, I enjoy all your posts. This one is the best so far, and I hope you have scores (many scores) of readers who will reach the same conclusions you have. I'm worried sick that Trump and his minions are poised to abandon Ukraine's cause, and harbor some hope that a sufficiency of Congress and a host of learned foreign policy experts will prevent total capitulation to Putin. Thanks for your work.
I think it's important to remember how much, just in the last three years, the US has spent on Ukraine and how many Ukrainians have died or fled. When you look at those numbers, it's clear that Ukraine can't win. If one thinks they can still win, I ask: how much more money and how many more lives have to be lost or displaced to achieve victory? Another $100 billion and 100,000 lives? How much?
For ease of argument, let's take the average pro-war view in the US, which is that the war started in January 2022. At that point, with the benefit of hindsight, would the best course of action for the US have been diplomacy or what they did, which was escalate, encourage, support, and sustain a war between a country with a nascent and completely dependent military against a world nuclear power?
I believe diplomacy would have been a better method. And now, looking at the situation, it seems to be the only sane course to take. Ukraine, like all countries in the former Soviet block, have a fraught and complicated history with Russia. And Ukraine, because it does indeed have a large population of "ethnic" Russians, might have a more complicated situation than most countries with a similar history. I believe this supports my view that a more diplomatic approach should have been taken immediately. Bombs and blood aren't going to solve hundreds of years of history.
All that said, we have to address the US government's long history of proxy wars with Russia. This is not the first time one of either US or Russia armed a country the other was fighting. And each time, the main goal was, as far as I know, to antagonize and weaken the other. It must be asked if that is the main purpose for the US supporting this war. I think it is and that the Ukrainian people are being used for that end. Delaying diplomacy and extending bloodshed only worsens that exploitation.
I agree. This has been a proxy war that almost ended in a nuclear WW3 (but for the restraint of Putin). The eastward expansion of NATO was the real reason for the conflict and it was clear that the Russians were not going to tolerate Ukrainian membership, which would have been an existential threat. Putin held his hand for eight long years. But the reckless neocons in DC, along with their European quislings, were happy to provoke the bear.
I don't agree! Your analysis seems to miss the occupation of Crimea, and the Donbas, and the 2022 invasion all over Ukraine. Very hard to talk about this war without factoring all that in! And why in the world would NATO membership in Ukraine be an existential threat to Russia? The US doesn't need Ukraine to shoot nukes into Russia. Having Ukraine in NATO no more means that Ukraine would invade Russia than it does that any of the other six NATO countries that border Russia would be a staging ground for an invasion!
Hi Ray, I appreciate the note. Of course, I don't agree with you, but I take your point. I would disagree with your framing about Ukraine "winning." I don't think Ukraine is fighting to win exactly - I think they're fighting to survive! And I disagree about the dichotomy of diplomacy and war. Putin attacked in February, 2022; it's really not as if Ukraine or the West had closed the door on diplomacy at that time, they really were looking for diplomatic solutions, but Putin thought he could get what he wanted in a quick attack. I'm not sure how it's possible to view the events of that time - the lightning strike on Kyiv, etc, in any other way. I think we can have a heftier argument about whether the US and Ukraine could have come to the table before now, but the reality is that Putin just wasn't very interested - everything in his conduct has suggested that he wants to fight a long war of attrition and was waiting in particular for Trump's election. There's absolutely no reason to think that, if the US had withdrawn arms and forced Ukraine to take an unfavorable and humiliating peace deal, that Putin wouldn't, as soon as he wanted, have started up the conflict again. I really don't see a lot of options for Ukraine except to have fought all this time. It's like if the US had invaded Canada, citing historical ties between the two countries, the fact that there are a lot of Americans in Canada, and bitterness over French street signs. Wouldn't Canada have had every right to fight to the bitter end? And wouldn't it be incumbent on the international community to give all the support that Canada asked for? - Sam
Continuing to arm Ukraine at this point is like a boxing trainer refusing to throw in the towel despite his fighter getting mercilessly beat-up with no chance of winning the fight. People won't like that comparison because so many have this Cold War-era, inborn hatred of Russia and they think this is Rocky 4 and it's still possible for the little guy to come out victoriously. But look at the numbers of Ukrainians killed and displaced. Look at the ages of the soldiers fighting now. Look at how hard younger men are trying to flee so they don't conscripted and sent to the meat grinder.
Another $100 billion isn't going to change anything except the death toll.
The best account of the Ukraine - US debacle has always been from Dr. Jeffery Sachs. To ignore his thoughts is to ignore the truth about the Ukraine war.
Yes, Slava Ukraini! I am glad that you were in Ukraine and returned with a better understanding of the country than your former Russian teacher, who couldn't even explain the meaning of "У края." Little Russia as a state started in Kiev, with Prince Vladimir accepting Christianity from Greece and the language Old Church Slavonic, which was devised by two Greek monks. But I guess you know all that. Imperial and later Soviet Russia trampled down not only Ukraine-Malaya Russia but Belorussia- White Russia. Of course, both countries have a right to independence, as every country in the world. But it's the opinion of the only honest people, not Putin or Tramp. Adding to it that Russian people were slaves for so long under Communist propaganda that they became slaves and continue to be slaves under former communist and KGB-ist Putin and go to fight against their brothers and sisters. Biden and Europe were so slow in their help that there is the end of it. The country is in ruin; people are exhausted. And Tramp sells Ukraine to the enemy. Everything repeated itself: Again, America and Russia are two dominants in the world.
Good writing. I find Mearsheimer's approach to humanity obscene. It sets the world in geopolitical aspic and then ridicules any nation (or person) who wishes to have a small say in their fate. The 'realists' are also arbitrary casuists - you may just as well hand Russia back to the Swedes, Lithuanians, Poles, Vikings... on their logic.
The opportunity you speak of at the close of the piece, however, is not yet fully squandered.
Thank you Christopher. I've been willing to engage with Mearsheimer at different times - and I do understand his logic from a geopolitical point of view - but there's just this enormous blind spot over state sovereignty. According to his logic, I see no reason why the US couldn't just swallow up Mexico or Canada if it chose to under the logic of 'sphere of influence' as well as the fact of nuclear weapons, and the international community would be completely absent any right of reply.
It's a very narrow logic at best. In practical terms, in a real world of humans, therefore, that makes it profoundly illogical (as well as avowedly amoral, and collusive with the immoral).
I found a McGilchrist quote just now which I think can be applied:
'Narrow logic, once given foundations, can carry on as long as you like. But it cannot ground itself. It cannot provide either its first assumptions in any argument, nor, in more general terms, its own worth as a tool in reaching the truth.'
Mearsheimer is internally coherent, within his narrowly-defined terms. But the definition is arbitrary and does not impinge on truth or offer validity outside its circular terms. Still less a guide to moral action.
Sam, I enjoy all your posts. This one is the best so far, and I hope you have scores (many scores) of readers who will reach the same conclusions you have. I'm worried sick that Trump and his minions are poised to abandon Ukraine's cause, and harbor some hope that a sufficiency of Congress and a host of learned foreign policy experts will prevent total capitulation to Putin. Thanks for your work.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it Stephen.
Thank you for sharing this.
Thank you Victoria!
Thank you.
Thank you, Sam, for this moving text. History will not judge kindly the failure we are witnessing and are a part of.
Thank you so much Dirk. Amen.
I think it's important to remember how much, just in the last three years, the US has spent on Ukraine and how many Ukrainians have died or fled. When you look at those numbers, it's clear that Ukraine can't win. If one thinks they can still win, I ask: how much more money and how many more lives have to be lost or displaced to achieve victory? Another $100 billion and 100,000 lives? How much?
For ease of argument, let's take the average pro-war view in the US, which is that the war started in January 2022. At that point, with the benefit of hindsight, would the best course of action for the US have been diplomacy or what they did, which was escalate, encourage, support, and sustain a war between a country with a nascent and completely dependent military against a world nuclear power?
I believe diplomacy would have been a better method. And now, looking at the situation, it seems to be the only sane course to take. Ukraine, like all countries in the former Soviet block, have a fraught and complicated history with Russia. And Ukraine, because it does indeed have a large population of "ethnic" Russians, might have a more complicated situation than most countries with a similar history. I believe this supports my view that a more diplomatic approach should have been taken immediately. Bombs and blood aren't going to solve hundreds of years of history.
All that said, we have to address the US government's long history of proxy wars with Russia. This is not the first time one of either US or Russia armed a country the other was fighting. And each time, the main goal was, as far as I know, to antagonize and weaken the other. It must be asked if that is the main purpose for the US supporting this war. I think it is and that the Ukrainian people are being used for that end. Delaying diplomacy and extending bloodshed only worsens that exploitation.
I agree. This has been a proxy war that almost ended in a nuclear WW3 (but for the restraint of Putin). The eastward expansion of NATO was the real reason for the conflict and it was clear that the Russians were not going to tolerate Ukrainian membership, which would have been an existential threat. Putin held his hand for eight long years. But the reckless neocons in DC, along with their European quislings, were happy to provoke the bear.
I don't agree! Your analysis seems to miss the occupation of Crimea, and the Donbas, and the 2022 invasion all over Ukraine. Very hard to talk about this war without factoring all that in! And why in the world would NATO membership in Ukraine be an existential threat to Russia? The US doesn't need Ukraine to shoot nukes into Russia. Having Ukraine in NATO no more means that Ukraine would invade Russia than it does that any of the other six NATO countries that border Russia would be a staging ground for an invasion!
Hi Ray, I appreciate the note. Of course, I don't agree with you, but I take your point. I would disagree with your framing about Ukraine "winning." I don't think Ukraine is fighting to win exactly - I think they're fighting to survive! And I disagree about the dichotomy of diplomacy and war. Putin attacked in February, 2022; it's really not as if Ukraine or the West had closed the door on diplomacy at that time, they really were looking for diplomatic solutions, but Putin thought he could get what he wanted in a quick attack. I'm not sure how it's possible to view the events of that time - the lightning strike on Kyiv, etc, in any other way. I think we can have a heftier argument about whether the US and Ukraine could have come to the table before now, but the reality is that Putin just wasn't very interested - everything in his conduct has suggested that he wants to fight a long war of attrition and was waiting in particular for Trump's election. There's absolutely no reason to think that, if the US had withdrawn arms and forced Ukraine to take an unfavorable and humiliating peace deal, that Putin wouldn't, as soon as he wanted, have started up the conflict again. I really don't see a lot of options for Ukraine except to have fought all this time. It's like if the US had invaded Canada, citing historical ties between the two countries, the fact that there are a lot of Americans in Canada, and bitterness over French street signs. Wouldn't Canada have had every right to fight to the bitter end? And wouldn't it be incumbent on the international community to give all the support that Canada asked for? - Sam
Putin was at the table in March 2022, but the US (via the UK) convinced Zelensky to keep fighting. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
As for Ukraine fighting to "survive," that was my point - they're not surviving. They've lost 25% of their population: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/22/ukraine-population-has-plummeted-by-10-million-since-russias-invasion-un#:~:text=Exodus%20of%20refugees%2C%20collapsing%20fertility,population%20by%20around%2025%20percent.&text=Ukraine's%20population%20has%20declined%20by,according%20to%20the%20United%20Nations.
Continuing to arm Ukraine at this point is like a boxing trainer refusing to throw in the towel despite his fighter getting mercilessly beat-up with no chance of winning the fight. People won't like that comparison because so many have this Cold War-era, inborn hatred of Russia and they think this is Rocky 4 and it's still possible for the little guy to come out victoriously. But look at the numbers of Ukrainians killed and displaced. Look at the ages of the soldiers fighting now. Look at how hard younger men are trying to flee so they don't conscripted and sent to the meat grinder.
Another $100 billion isn't going to change anything except the death toll.
The best account of the Ukraine - US debacle has always been from Dr. Jeffery Sachs. To ignore his thoughts is to ignore the truth about the Ukraine war.
Thanks Medium. I have a pretty different view of events from Sachs, but should try to engage with him more closely.
Yes, Slava Ukraini! I am glad that you were in Ukraine and returned with a better understanding of the country than your former Russian teacher, who couldn't even explain the meaning of "У края." Little Russia as a state started in Kiev, with Prince Vladimir accepting Christianity from Greece and the language Old Church Slavonic, which was devised by two Greek monks. But I guess you know all that. Imperial and later Soviet Russia trampled down not only Ukraine-Malaya Russia but Belorussia- White Russia. Of course, both countries have a right to independence, as every country in the world. But it's the opinion of the only honest people, not Putin or Tramp. Adding to it that Russian people were slaves for so long under Communist propaganda that they became slaves and continue to be slaves under former communist and KGB-ist Putin and go to fight against their brothers and sisters. Biden and Europe were so slow in their help that there is the end of it. The country is in ruin; people are exhausted. And Tramp sells Ukraine to the enemy. Everything repeated itself: Again, America and Russia are two dominants in the world.
Thank you for the note Larisa. It's all so unbelievably depressing!
Good writing. I find Mearsheimer's approach to humanity obscene. It sets the world in geopolitical aspic and then ridicules any nation (or person) who wishes to have a small say in their fate. The 'realists' are also arbitrary casuists - you may just as well hand Russia back to the Swedes, Lithuanians, Poles, Vikings... on their logic.
The opportunity you speak of at the close of the piece, however, is not yet fully squandered.
Thank you Christopher. I've been willing to engage with Mearsheimer at different times - and I do understand his logic from a geopolitical point of view - but there's just this enormous blind spot over state sovereignty. According to his logic, I see no reason why the US couldn't just swallow up Mexico or Canada if it chose to under the logic of 'sphere of influence' as well as the fact of nuclear weapons, and the international community would be completely absent any right of reply.
It's a very narrow logic at best. In practical terms, in a real world of humans, therefore, that makes it profoundly illogical (as well as avowedly amoral, and collusive with the immoral).
Agreed
I found a McGilchrist quote just now which I think can be applied:
'Narrow logic, once given foundations, can carry on as long as you like. But it cannot ground itself. It cannot provide either its first assumptions in any argument, nor, in more general terms, its own worth as a tool in reaching the truth.'
Mearsheimer is internally coherent, within his narrowly-defined terms. But the definition is arbitrary and does not impinge on truth or offer validity outside its circular terms. Still less a guide to moral action.