Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Ignorant Dilettantes Give Up on Ukraine -- Benjamin Wittes - Lawfare
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--ignorant-dilettantes-give-up-on-ukraineThere is a point at which ignorant dilettantism becomes a form of cruelty. Trump passed it long ago in Ukraine.
. . .
Trump came into office promising that he would get a deal to stop the fighting in Ukraine within 24 hours.
His approach, as his critics worried it would, seemed to involve bullying Ukraine into accepting major concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin and sidelining European allies who have been close partners in keeping Ukraine viable in the fight. In exchange for capitulating to Russian aggression, what would Ukraine get? Well, nothing good. No security guarantees. No NATO membership. Ukraine would, instead, have the honor of rapacious American exploitation of mineral resources—the United States having rebranded itself as the East India Tea Company.
There were only two problems with this plan—both of which were obvious from the beginning to just about everyone except Trump.
The first was that there was no earthly reason for Ukraine to accept a deal like this. Ukraine’s military situation was and is bad and eroding, but it’s not hopeless, and it’s eroding slowly. Russian gains are small, and while Ukraine has manpower issues, Russia does too and is losing people at a rate that will not be easy for it to sustain. Moreover, while the United States is an essential partner for Ukraine, Europe is stepping up, so Western support is not about to flip off. And Ukraine has also developed manufacturing capacity for an increasing amount of weaponry, particularly drones.
The second reason was that Russia has never shown any inclination to accept a deal that leaves Ukraine as a viable state. From the beginning, Russia has sought the obliteration of the independent Ukrainian state, the annexation of much of its territory, and the imposition on the rest of it of a Belarus-like client-state status. Putin has never made much secret of this, and the notion that he would agree to some kind of cease-fire in place while his forces are—while slowly and at great cost—advancing was always silly.
The deal Trump imagined wasn’t going to happen in 24 hours; it wasn’t going to happen in 24 days; and it’s probably not going to happen in 24 months.
. . .
Trump came into office promising that he would get a deal to stop the fighting in Ukraine within 24 hours.
His approach, as his critics worried it would, seemed to involve bullying Ukraine into accepting major concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin and sidelining European allies who have been close partners in keeping Ukraine viable in the fight. In exchange for capitulating to Russian aggression, what would Ukraine get? Well, nothing good. No security guarantees. No NATO membership. Ukraine would, instead, have the honor of rapacious American exploitation of mineral resources—the United States having rebranded itself as the East India Tea Company.
There were only two problems with this plan—both of which were obvious from the beginning to just about everyone except Trump.
The first was that there was no earthly reason for Ukraine to accept a deal like this. Ukraine’s military situation was and is bad and eroding, but it’s not hopeless, and it’s eroding slowly. Russian gains are small, and while Ukraine has manpower issues, Russia does too and is losing people at a rate that will not be easy for it to sustain. Moreover, while the United States is an essential partner for Ukraine, Europe is stepping up, so Western support is not about to flip off. And Ukraine has also developed manufacturing capacity for an increasing amount of weaponry, particularly drones.
The second reason was that Russia has never shown any inclination to accept a deal that leaves Ukraine as a viable state. From the beginning, Russia has sought the obliteration of the independent Ukrainian state, the annexation of much of its territory, and the imposition on the rest of it of a Belarus-like client-state status. Putin has never made much secret of this, and the notion that he would agree to some kind of cease-fire in place while his forces are—while slowly and at great cost—advancing was always silly.
The deal Trump imagined wasn’t going to happen in 24 hours; it wasn’t going to happen in 24 days; and it’s probably not going to happen in 24 months.
. . .
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
