One weakness of this analysis is that it failed to identify all the warring parties. It is now being said out loud by the West that the Ukraine is their proxy against Russia, their being on record that the goal was to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia. In this sense, the analysis failed by assuming that the Ukraine has full agency to decide solely on its own interests, disregarding the interests of those powers whose proxy it is and how they matter to Russia.
Yes, though I'd say this isn't a weakness of the analysis, but, ultimately, its failure. It's important to identify the warring sides, which the author fails to do here, in order to understand how to end the conflict. The real commitment credibility problem is with the west, they cannot offer any guarantees, they are not capable institutionally of signing and keeping agreements because there's no one in charge. No, Russia has no choice but to create the reality on the ground, both in Ukraine and farther on in Europe. We'll be extremely lucky to survive this moment in history.
"Probably over 200,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been killed;"
Seriously? So how many Ukrainians have been called up over the past 3 years to add to maybe 700k to start. They send trainee officers, under used support from the airforce and even Engineers to the front line. And women.
Frankly any estimate of under 500k Ukrainians is just silly. About 1 million IMO. In line with Russian estimates of those killed or severely wounded (often 2500 a day, now just 1500 a day as Ukraine just can't fill those gaps and is losing ground fast).
Cemetaries, survival rates of wounded, 5 vs 26 weeks of training (any medical training at all), being shelled at a rate of 10:1, average age over 40 vs average age under 30, and the disappearance of about 2 million troops from the Ukrainian army. Russia has withdrawn at the first sight of bad odds and never lost a battle actually fought. A kill rate of 10:1 is exactly what should be expected.
"Even if it is clear to an objective outside observer that one side has lost or that neither side is capable of absolute victory, those involved in the fighting may not view things the same way or may be unwilling to act on the knowledge. "
Well it is clear that Ukraine lost, and has been clear for over 2 years. And i bet there isn't a fighting Ukrainian left who doesn't know that very well. But decisions seem to be made, and bribes made from washington, not the frontlines. Of course western media and "experts" who quite like their jobs are complicit in the dishonesty and deaths for the last three quarters of a million Ukrainians.
"The analysis above suggests that third-party state leaders who are seeking to end a war being fought by other states have two options:"
Having deeply corrupted Zelensky and the Kiev Leadership, it really is the third-party state leaders who decide. [We all know the states, Fxxx knows who the leaders are, but deep down somebody is calling the shots - conveniently anonymously.]
"But what are security guarantees for Ukraine are perceived as security threats by Russia."
well quite. You understate the point on Nato entry - Nato entry or just protection is a GUARANTEE OF INSECURITY for Ukraine. That is the most important thing for the west to accept (of course domestic politics make that difficult). What Russia has demanded from the start is that the neighbour of a Super Power must act like a responsible neighbour, and not simply invite a rival SuperPower from across the Atlantic into its garden.
"Arguably, it was Russian fears of the movement of Ukraine into the NATO camp, of apparent Ukrainian hostility, and of an escalation of the war in eastern Ukraine into a wider conflict involving Western powers, that motivated Russia’s leaders into launching a preventive war against Ukraine. "
Too tamely put. It was the attack on Donbas that Zelensky loudly and repeatedly promised during 2021 which was pre-empted. Indeed the CIA predicted Russian invasion was not prepared for by Ukraine - there was no defence prepared any but outside Donbas where Ukrainian troops were massed. So the CIA predictions were clearly meant to precede a false flag attack claimed to be by LPR/DPR on Ukraine to justify a Ukrainian attack on Donbas. {Hence the distraction with far too few troops to capture Kharkov, let alone Kiev, but which lead to Ukraine withdrawals from Donbas and the opportunity to get enough Russian artillery into position to outgun Ukraine there.
Not making this point forcefully implicitly accepts the nonsense that Russia has always wanted to go all the way to Berlin again.
I see non-Russian Ukraine going the way of Syria (or Libya) rapidly. A pit of chaos at the end of the Silk Road preventing trade between Russia or China with Europe.
Which of course was always the goal of many controlling the US leadership.
I don't believe that Ukraine should have any security guarantees. Almost no country bordering a mightier one has such guarantees and where such guarantees exist it is a source of trouble. Finland thrived while being "Finlandized". Mexico and Canada have no security guarantees from any country despite previous American aggressions. And it is hard to see how America's semi-official guarantees for Taiwan strengthen the security there.
The politics of Poland and the Baltics is just stupid. Their politicians submit to popular demands for anti-Russian policies - knowing fully well that to econonically thrive they need to have good relations on both sides. The resulting blockade on their Eastern borders turns them into marginalized backwaters and the only thing they can to improve the situation at least a bit is to play up the "Russian threat" in order to attract NATO investment.
Yes - security guarantee means a positive relationship with the big neighbour and the reassurance that Ukraine will never again assist threats to Russia.
It is like Cuba asking Russia for a security guarantee against USA - Cuba just has to accept that it can't afford to provoke USA and that is it (otherwise they will attempt to kill your president 634 times).
It was so good to read an article by Professor Robinson (I do miss his long-form blogging from his Irrussianality Blog). I agree that the bottom line for both sides is a guarantee of security, something for which Russia has advocated since the disintegration of the USSR, attendant with a neutral Ukraine. Russia was hoping for a Pan-European security agreement, which it never received. Instead, Bill Clinton took a "winner-take-all" approach toward Russia and began NATO's expansion eastward. This proceeded apace with succeeding US administrations, despite the US promise not to expand NATO one inch East after Gorbachev agreed to a united Germany. Indeed, the US has expanded NATO up to Ukraine; pledged to bring Ukraine into NATO; withdrawn from vital arms control agreements with Russia; ignored MInsk I and II; and fostered a coup in Ukraine, crossing all of Russia's red lines. This prompted the war, along with the US hegemon attempting to weaken Russia and discouraging Zelensky from signing a peace accord with Russia in April of 2022. None of these actions have benefitted Ukraine. What can stop it? Security, security, security. The US and its allies should end their incessant pledge to bring Ukraine into NATO; engage in actual diplomacy with its adversary; agree to a non-aligned status for Ukraine, concomitant with a pan-European security agreement which includes both Russia and Ukraine. Unfortunately, Ukraine will most likely have to cede some territory. Regarding the latter (though probably not in reference to Crimea and Novorussiya), elections monitored by the UN could ascertain which lands be ceded back to Ukraine and those that will remain part of Russia to comprise a final peace treaty.
Robinson's piece is useful for laying out the theoretical basis for any ending of the war. But as many commentators have noted, Robinson's conclusions/policy recommendations fail to accurately identify facts on the ground displaying the very "cognitive bias" he decries. One such "fact" is his claim of 200,000 casualties on both sides. As others have explained, his numbers bear no reality to the size and scope of the industrial warfare waged so far by Russia as well as the secondary evidence losses suffered by both sides. I especially want to emphasize that he fails to acknowledge that Russia has demonstrated qualitative superiority in conventional standoff weapons, such as hypersonics and most recently the Oreshnik IRBM, none of which the West has an equal and has no defense. Seems to me the longer this war continues it is a mathematical certainty that Ukraine will be defeated and forced to surrender. The sooner the West realizes this the greater will be the urgency by the West to end this war. We are already seeing signs of this.
It's questionable if Russian security concerns were ever a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine. Consider Russia's reaction to Finland's NATO membership, which doubled NATO's land border with Russia and brought NATO border within 160 km of Russia's second largest city. It was limited to some condemning statements. Surely Russia was already tied to Ukraine when Finland joined NATO, but there appeared to be no serious effort to stop Finland during the application process.
That goes along with the obvious fact that NATO is not a military threat to nuclear armed Russia in any way. Finland joining NATO, bringing NATO border very close to Russia's ex-capital and doubling NATO land border with Russia had no security implication to Russia and therefore Russia didn't react.
In the same way Ukraine joining NATO is not a military threat to Russia.
It is thus more likely that the true reason for Russia's invasion is that Russia considers it valuable to be able to control Ukrainian political leadership and lock Ukraine economically to Russia. After a peace treaty, a continued threat of new invasion is needed to be able to do that in the future, to set Ukraine in path of finlandization.
One weakness of this analysis is that it failed to identify all the warring parties. It is now being said out loud by the West that the Ukraine is their proxy against Russia, their being on record that the goal was to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia. In this sense, the analysis failed by assuming that the Ukraine has full agency to decide solely on its own interests, disregarding the interests of those powers whose proxy it is and how they matter to Russia.
Yes, though I'd say this isn't a weakness of the analysis, but, ultimately, its failure. It's important to identify the warring sides, which the author fails to do here, in order to understand how to end the conflict. The real commitment credibility problem is with the west, they cannot offer any guarantees, they are not capable institutionally of signing and keeping agreements because there's no one in charge. No, Russia has no choice but to create the reality on the ground, both in Ukraine and farther on in Europe. We'll be extremely lucky to survive this moment in history.
The war proves that NATO lacks the capability to guarantee Ukraine's security even if it had coherent leadership.
"Probably over 200,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been killed;"
Seriously? So how many Ukrainians have been called up over the past 3 years to add to maybe 700k to start. They send trainee officers, under used support from the airforce and even Engineers to the front line. And women.
Frankly any estimate of under 500k Ukrainians is just silly. About 1 million IMO. In line with Russian estimates of those killed or severely wounded (often 2500 a day, now just 1500 a day as Ukraine just can't fill those gaps and is losing ground fast).
Cemetaries, survival rates of wounded, 5 vs 26 weeks of training (any medical training at all), being shelled at a rate of 10:1, average age over 40 vs average age under 30, and the disappearance of about 2 million troops from the Ukrainian army. Russia has withdrawn at the first sight of bad odds and never lost a battle actually fought. A kill rate of 10:1 is exactly what should be expected.
"Even if it is clear to an objective outside observer that one side has lost or that neither side is capable of absolute victory, those involved in the fighting may not view things the same way or may be unwilling to act on the knowledge. "
Well it is clear that Ukraine lost, and has been clear for over 2 years. And i bet there isn't a fighting Ukrainian left who doesn't know that very well. But decisions seem to be made, and bribes made from washington, not the frontlines. Of course western media and "experts" who quite like their jobs are complicit in the dishonesty and deaths for the last three quarters of a million Ukrainians.
"The analysis above suggests that third-party state leaders who are seeking to end a war being fought by other states have two options:"
Having deeply corrupted Zelensky and the Kiev Leadership, it really is the third-party state leaders who decide. [We all know the states, Fxxx knows who the leaders are, but deep down somebody is calling the shots - conveniently anonymously.]
"But what are security guarantees for Ukraine are perceived as security threats by Russia."
well quite. You understate the point on Nato entry - Nato entry or just protection is a GUARANTEE OF INSECURITY for Ukraine. That is the most important thing for the west to accept (of course domestic politics make that difficult). What Russia has demanded from the start is that the neighbour of a Super Power must act like a responsible neighbour, and not simply invite a rival SuperPower from across the Atlantic into its garden.
"Arguably, it was Russian fears of the movement of Ukraine into the NATO camp, of apparent Ukrainian hostility, and of an escalation of the war in eastern Ukraine into a wider conflict involving Western powers, that motivated Russia’s leaders into launching a preventive war against Ukraine. "
Too tamely put. It was the attack on Donbas that Zelensky loudly and repeatedly promised during 2021 which was pre-empted. Indeed the CIA predicted Russian invasion was not prepared for by Ukraine - there was no defence prepared any but outside Donbas where Ukrainian troops were massed. So the CIA predictions were clearly meant to precede a false flag attack claimed to be by LPR/DPR on Ukraine to justify a Ukrainian attack on Donbas. {Hence the distraction with far too few troops to capture Kharkov, let alone Kiev, but which lead to Ukraine withdrawals from Donbas and the opportunity to get enough Russian artillery into position to outgun Ukraine there.
Not making this point forcefully implicitly accepts the nonsense that Russia has always wanted to go all the way to Berlin again.
I see non-Russian Ukraine going the way of Syria (or Libya) rapidly. A pit of chaos at the end of the Silk Road preventing trade between Russia or China with Europe.
Which of course was always the goal of many controlling the US leadership.
I don't believe that Ukraine should have any security guarantees. Almost no country bordering a mightier one has such guarantees and where such guarantees exist it is a source of trouble. Finland thrived while being "Finlandized". Mexico and Canada have no security guarantees from any country despite previous American aggressions. And it is hard to see how America's semi-official guarantees for Taiwan strengthen the security there.
The politics of Poland and the Baltics is just stupid. Their politicians submit to popular demands for anti-Russian policies - knowing fully well that to econonically thrive they need to have good relations on both sides. The resulting blockade on their Eastern borders turns them into marginalized backwaters and the only thing they can to improve the situation at least a bit is to play up the "Russian threat" in order to attract NATO investment.
Yes - security guarantee means a positive relationship with the big neighbour and the reassurance that Ukraine will never again assist threats to Russia.
It is like Cuba asking Russia for a security guarantee against USA - Cuba just has to accept that it can't afford to provoke USA and that is it (otherwise they will attempt to kill your president 634 times).
It was so good to read an article by Professor Robinson (I do miss his long-form blogging from his Irrussianality Blog). I agree that the bottom line for both sides is a guarantee of security, something for which Russia has advocated since the disintegration of the USSR, attendant with a neutral Ukraine. Russia was hoping for a Pan-European security agreement, which it never received. Instead, Bill Clinton took a "winner-take-all" approach toward Russia and began NATO's expansion eastward. This proceeded apace with succeeding US administrations, despite the US promise not to expand NATO one inch East after Gorbachev agreed to a united Germany. Indeed, the US has expanded NATO up to Ukraine; pledged to bring Ukraine into NATO; withdrawn from vital arms control agreements with Russia; ignored MInsk I and II; and fostered a coup in Ukraine, crossing all of Russia's red lines. This prompted the war, along with the US hegemon attempting to weaken Russia and discouraging Zelensky from signing a peace accord with Russia in April of 2022. None of these actions have benefitted Ukraine. What can stop it? Security, security, security. The US and its allies should end their incessant pledge to bring Ukraine into NATO; engage in actual diplomacy with its adversary; agree to a non-aligned status for Ukraine, concomitant with a pan-European security agreement which includes both Russia and Ukraine. Unfortunately, Ukraine will most likely have to cede some territory. Regarding the latter (though probably not in reference to Crimea and Novorussiya), elections monitored by the UN could ascertain which lands be ceded back to Ukraine and those that will remain part of Russia to comprise a final peace treaty.
Thanks for that useful post you shared,Mike.
It certainly covered alot of ground.
I'll have to reread it to get the full value of it.
One thing thing I'd like to add, is that now our leaders take very little risk from war.
Oh,some wind up like Saddam Hassine, but the rest have Swiss bank accounts, and bomb shelters
Put a few of them on the front line and War would stop in a second.
Even Assad, as the latest example. He may have been a victim of the West, but he also robbed his people.
Robinson's piece is useful for laying out the theoretical basis for any ending of the war. But as many commentators have noted, Robinson's conclusions/policy recommendations fail to accurately identify facts on the ground displaying the very "cognitive bias" he decries. One such "fact" is his claim of 200,000 casualties on both sides. As others have explained, his numbers bear no reality to the size and scope of the industrial warfare waged so far by Russia as well as the secondary evidence losses suffered by both sides. I especially want to emphasize that he fails to acknowledge that Russia has demonstrated qualitative superiority in conventional standoff weapons, such as hypersonics and most recently the Oreshnik IRBM, none of which the West has an equal and has no defense. Seems to me the longer this war continues it is a mathematical certainty that Ukraine will be defeated and forced to surrender. The sooner the West realizes this the greater will be the urgency by the West to end this war. We are already seeing signs of this.
> "Joe Biden has shown no interest in mediating a peace process. Neither have any European leaders."
That's not true.
Hungary.
Correct. The exception that proves the rule.
Observe the efforts at present to prevent similar mistakes being permitted in Romania, Moldova, and Georgia where things look more-or-less Euromaidan.
The entire Black Sea region, thus a plan that needs to become common knowledge.
Excellent comprehensive analysis of the options available for peace. I learned a lot.
It's questionable if Russian security concerns were ever a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine. Consider Russia's reaction to Finland's NATO membership, which doubled NATO's land border with Russia and brought NATO border within 160 km of Russia's second largest city. It was limited to some condemning statements. Surely Russia was already tied to Ukraine when Finland joined NATO, but there appeared to be no serious effort to stop Finland during the application process.
That goes along with the obvious fact that NATO is not a military threat to nuclear armed Russia in any way. Finland joining NATO, bringing NATO border very close to Russia's ex-capital and doubling NATO land border with Russia had no security implication to Russia and therefore Russia didn't react.
In the same way Ukraine joining NATO is not a military threat to Russia.
It is thus more likely that the true reason for Russia's invasion is that Russia considers it valuable to be able to control Ukrainian political leadership and lock Ukraine economically to Russia. After a peace treaty, a continued threat of new invasion is needed to be able to do that in the future, to set Ukraine in path of finlandization.