You do not define winning. Russia stated the goals of the SMO as de-Nazification, de-militarization, and liberation of the people of Donbas. So when that happens, Russia wins. The Ukrainians want to take back the Donbas and Crimea. When that happens, Ukraine wins. Does either seem imminent now or in the next few months? No. Has either position changed since the beginning of the war? No.
As far as peace, Ukraine and Russia were on the brink of a peace agreement in April, until Boris Johnson came in and told the Ukrainians that if they signed it, the West would cut off aid. Ukraine is an economic basket case, and only Western aid is keeping the economy from going into hyperinflation. Zelensky is stuck, the only way he keeps his country going is by slaughtering his people to achieve telegenic victories for Western politicians, because if he makes a peace the West won't accept, then he is hung out to dry. Further, when the West gets sick of the war or is distracted, and wants a peace, then Zelensky will have to give up territory (at least Crimea) if he wants to get a peace deal. Guess what his friends in the Right Sector do to Zelensky if he gives up an inch of territory? Not pretty.
The point of this war is to weaken Russia, and maybe, to the really optimistic, to turn the Black Sea into a NATO pond. The West is willing to kill as many Ukrainians as it takes to do the job. The West cares about as much about the Ukrainian cause as Cardinal Richelieu cared about the Protestant cause in Germany.
Have to agree with Richard -- whether or not anyone thinks it's a good idea, the notion that the US is likely to withdraw support at this point seems profoundly ignorant.
Trump could try to do it, maybe, but he's not going to win in 2024, and even if he did that's 2 years away. The peacenik side of the Democratic Party has been successfully shouted down; the Republicans largely agree with this and even if they didn't, with their tiny House majority they'd have to be united in opposition to block continued funding which just won't happen.
It's also just not a thing that really happens in general. It's not how these things go. Afghanistan and Iraq aren't even the right analogies because Americans were dying in those wars. It would be more like the US cutting off aid to Afghanistan's mujahideen during the Soviet invasion there. The cost to the US is immaterial. There should be no doubt the US would still be sending Stinger missiles to the Afghans in 2022 if they were still shooting down Soviet aircraft with them.
The implication that I’ve seen from Richard on occasion, and from some commenters, that US support for Ukraine is actually counter-humanitarian does not withstand analysis. Without our support, the death toll would probably have been far higher, and would have been spread over a much larger extent of Ukraine. Also, in that scenario the war could easily end up lasting longer due to Russia’s inability to successfully subdue Ukraine.
There are situations in the world where our intervention has prolonged a war and made the humanitarian situation worse in the long run, such as Syria. But you shouldn’t just reflexively and shallowly jump to this conclusion in all cases, a la Michael Tracey.
If we hadn’t sent all that stuff we would probably have most of Ukraine under a puppet government and Western Ukraine (Carpathia, etc) under the current government supporting partisans against the CSTO backed government. That does seem like a high casualty scenario but probably less so than a full scale war.
This sounds like a recipe for long term instability and conflict. Also, it would set the stage for a backlash in the West against Russia, resulting in funding and support of a deadly insurgency anyway, like Afghanistan in the 1980s. In choosing policy in a democracy, one has to anticipate the popular sustainability of that policy.
Well, I think it's impossible to know, so people can debate it forever if they want. The death toll is going to end up largely being a function of the length of time that large-scale combat operations take place. Which means you would need to compare the currently unknown length of the war with the even more unknown length of the war if the US hadn't intervened.
But a country can be completely conquered by a man who is literally Hitler and still suffer a lot fewer deaths than it would if it were engaged in an ultimately successful attritional slog over a narrow strip of land. Compare French casualties in the World Wars.
I do think it's fair to say that US policy here isn't *primarily* humanitarian. Which is to say, not primarily focused on saving lives and reducing war-related suffering in Ukraine. Though, of course, that isn't the primary focus of Ukraine's government either. Both parties are valuing Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity above those things, like all countries that choose to fight a defensive war rather than submit to an aggressor's demands.
If the US focus were primarily humanitarian, it would be offering both carrots and sticks to both parties to agree to sit down and hammer out a cease-fire as quickly as possible. Of course, this would look very different from both the current policy and the isolationist policy that seems to be the chief alternative being tossed around.
Good podcast, some interesting things others just laughable speculation, but in general nice two bring the two side perspective here of the war. However, the moment you 2 revealed as a Pro military industry war mongerers was the best thing of this podcast. America has no obligation to help Ukraine at all and if it stops peace deals will immediately appear, but ivy league guys pushing for more war without putting physical presence in the deal is just perfect. Should we be called you two Canadian David Frum ?
You do not define winning. Russia stated the goals of the SMO as de-Nazification, de-militarization, and liberation of the people of Donbas. So when that happens, Russia wins. The Ukrainians want to take back the Donbas and Crimea. When that happens, Ukraine wins. Does either seem imminent now or in the next few months? No. Has either position changed since the beginning of the war? No.
As far as peace, Ukraine and Russia were on the brink of a peace agreement in April, until Boris Johnson came in and told the Ukrainians that if they signed it, the West would cut off aid. Ukraine is an economic basket case, and only Western aid is keeping the economy from going into hyperinflation. Zelensky is stuck, the only way he keeps his country going is by slaughtering his people to achieve telegenic victories for Western politicians, because if he makes a peace the West won't accept, then he is hung out to dry. Further, when the West gets sick of the war or is distracted, and wants a peace, then Zelensky will have to give up territory (at least Crimea) if he wants to get a peace deal. Guess what his friends in the Right Sector do to Zelensky if he gives up an inch of territory? Not pretty.
The point of this war is to weaken Russia, and maybe, to the really optimistic, to turn the Black Sea into a NATO pond. The West is willing to kill as many Ukrainians as it takes to do the job. The West cares about as much about the Ukrainian cause as Cardinal Richelieu cared about the Protestant cause in Germany.
Brutal but true I think.
Have to agree with Richard -- whether or not anyone thinks it's a good idea, the notion that the US is likely to withdraw support at this point seems profoundly ignorant.
Trump could try to do it, maybe, but he's not going to win in 2024, and even if he did that's 2 years away. The peacenik side of the Democratic Party has been successfully shouted down; the Republicans largely agree with this and even if they didn't, with their tiny House majority they'd have to be united in opposition to block continued funding which just won't happen.
It's also just not a thing that really happens in general. It's not how these things go. Afghanistan and Iraq aren't even the right analogies because Americans were dying in those wars. It would be more like the US cutting off aid to Afghanistan's mujahideen during the Soviet invasion there. The cost to the US is immaterial. There should be no doubt the US would still be sending Stinger missiles to the Afghans in 2022 if they were still shooting down Soviet aircraft with them.
The implication that I’ve seen from Richard on occasion, and from some commenters, that US support for Ukraine is actually counter-humanitarian does not withstand analysis. Without our support, the death toll would probably have been far higher, and would have been spread over a much larger extent of Ukraine. Also, in that scenario the war could easily end up lasting longer due to Russia’s inability to successfully subdue Ukraine.
There are situations in the world where our intervention has prolonged a war and made the humanitarian situation worse in the long run, such as Syria. But you shouldn’t just reflexively and shallowly jump to this conclusion in all cases, a la Michael Tracey.
If we hadn’t sent all that stuff we would probably have most of Ukraine under a puppet government and Western Ukraine (Carpathia, etc) under the current government supporting partisans against the CSTO backed government. That does seem like a high casualty scenario but probably less so than a full scale war.
This sounds like a recipe for long term instability and conflict. Also, it would set the stage for a backlash in the West against Russia, resulting in funding and support of a deadly insurgency anyway, like Afghanistan in the 1980s. In choosing policy in a democracy, one has to anticipate the popular sustainability of that policy.
Well, I think it's impossible to know, so people can debate it forever if they want. The death toll is going to end up largely being a function of the length of time that large-scale combat operations take place. Which means you would need to compare the currently unknown length of the war with the even more unknown length of the war if the US hadn't intervened.
But a country can be completely conquered by a man who is literally Hitler and still suffer a lot fewer deaths than it would if it were engaged in an ultimately successful attritional slog over a narrow strip of land. Compare French casualties in the World Wars.
I do think it's fair to say that US policy here isn't *primarily* humanitarian. Which is to say, not primarily focused on saving lives and reducing war-related suffering in Ukraine. Though, of course, that isn't the primary focus of Ukraine's government either. Both parties are valuing Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity above those things, like all countries that choose to fight a defensive war rather than submit to an aggressor's demands.
If the US focus were primarily humanitarian, it would be offering both carrots and sticks to both parties to agree to sit down and hammer out a cease-fire as quickly as possible. Of course, this would look very different from both the current policy and the isolationist policy that seems to be the chief alternative being tossed around.
Good podcast, some interesting things others just laughable speculation, but in general nice two bring the two side perspective here of the war. However, the moment you 2 revealed as a Pro military industry war mongerers was the best thing of this podcast. America has no obligation to help Ukraine at all and if it stops peace deals will immediately appear, but ivy league guys pushing for more war without putting physical presence in the deal is just perfect. Should we be called you two Canadian David Frum ?