I have discussed this question almost a year ago here, before the much hyped (and failed) Ukrainian counter-offensive, but now the hour of truth is approaching rapidly. Fateful decisions will have to be taken by the US and its European subordinates. There is some opposition in the US to getting deeper involved in the Ukrainian quagmire, but in the EU the opposition to the Ukrainian adventure is limited to some right-wing parties (and two countries: Hungary and Slovakia). The overwhelming majority of the EU politicians and possibly a majority of the population are willing to continue to the bitter end.
If we look at the options for NATO, there are basically three.
The first, and most likely, option is just to continue as before, providing more money and weapons to the Government in Kiev. After succeeding in getting the EU 54 billion Euro package approved, and with the probable approval of the US 60 billion dollar package, this option should be secured financially for at least the rest of 2024. The main weakness of this option is that the Government in Kiev is running out of people to send to the killing fields, and the methods used to enrol people into the army are becoming more and more extreme – and increasingly unpopular. So it will extend the war with one or more years, it will cost tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands more lives, but it is unlikely to change the outcome, and for the Ukrainian nationalists the end result is likely to be worse. I am not alone in this thinking. Only 10% of the EU population believe that Ukraine can win the war (even if there are still commentators who think Ukraine can win the war, or at least so they say).
Some of the most bloody battles have been on the Western outskirts of Donetsk City (1 million inhabitants), where the Kiev army slowly has been driven out of several heavily fortified positions: Maryinka, Pesky and now Avdiivka. On the photo a screen-shot from a video showing the capture of the Coke plant in Avdiivka on February 17, 2024. Source:https://t.me/intelslava/55342
The second option is to continue the military and financial support to the Government in Kiev and at the same time negotiate with the Russians. The claim that this is up to Zelensky to decide is absurd. It is generally considered that he will not last many months without the US and the EU sending weapons and paying the Government’s bills – Zelensky himself recognizes that. So this decision is up to the paymasters, not the one standing hat in hand. Some Western commentators have been toying with the idea of negotiations, but when they find out that the Russian stance has hardened since the talks in Turkey in 2022, which former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson succeeded in sabotaging, they conclude that there is nothing to negotiate. It is clear that the Russians will never accept Ukraine in NATO, as this is the very reason they are at war, and that they will not accept to leave Crimea. But now Donbas and the land bridge to Crimea are not negotiable either – they were so in 2022. That doesn’t mean that there is nothing to negotiate. The Government in Kiev risks losing Kharkov and Odessa if it doesn’t negotiate. It even risks ceasing to exist as an independent state. So its chance is now. The longer the war goes on, the more humiliating will the conditions be, and if it runs to the bitter end, it will end in unconditional surrender. It is clear that the US and EU are not ready for negotiations yet. But perhaps in 2025. The Russians seem to have the strategic patience to wait.
The third option is escalation. This is the most dangerous option, but it can unfortunately not be ruled out.
The rhetoric about the alleged consequences of a NATO defeat has reached incredible heights. It is said that if Russia wins in Ukraine, then Poland and the Baltic countries will be next, so for the security of these countries, Russia must be defeated in Ukraine whatever the cost. For Poland this risk is zero, as Poland’s defence Minister stated recently – Russia has no territorial dispute with Poland, so what would Russia gain from a war with Poland? Nothing. Estonia and Latvia on the other hand both have a sizeable Russian population (around 25%), and they are not treating this population gently. The reaction to the Ukraine war is to forcibly assimilate the ethnic Russians, or forcing them to leave. Difficult to defend from a human rights point of view, and not a clever policy if they want peace with their big neighbour. But even so, I don’t think they are next, as Russia doesn’t need a war with NATO.
In Sweden the war rhetoric has reached ridiculous levels, as the Government has explicitly warned the population of a war with Russia. The reaction of the population has been panicking so the Government has had to backtrack, saying that the reaction was exaggerated. Funny. How did they expect the population to react when they tell them that they have to be prepared for a coming war? Laughing? Even if the case with Sweden is extreme, the rhetoric is not much different in the rest of the Nordic countries. It is incredibly irresponsible. Funny enough, even NATO’s bellicose General Secretary, Jen Stoltenberg, states that there is no imminent military threat against any NATO ally, as does the Norwegian PM. They should have some words with their raging Swedish colleague.
Germany is not much better either. “Germany must increase its military preparedness to be ready for a potential war with Russia within the next five years”, according to General Carsten Breuer, Germany's highest ranking soldier, and he says that “Russia has both the military potential and intention to extend its aggression beyond Ukraine”. Why should Russia want a war with Germany? There is no Russian minority in Germany, and there are no territorial disputes (unless the Germans start claiming Kaliningrad/Konigsberg). So lest Germany has planned to send their army into Ukraine, the chance of war is zero. But if they do, the risk is high. To raise the stakes, the German Government claims that a Russian victory will send 10 million refugees to Germany. What do they expect to gain from these alarming messages? We can only hope that the aim simply is to get public backing for more funds for the Bundeswehr and that they are not really aiming for war.
More and more Ukrainian men are trying to escape the country to avoid being enrolled and sent to the killing fields. Ukrainian border guards show proudly 6 men they have caught trying to escape to Moldovia. They will be sacrificed to weaken Russia and teach it a lesson. Photo by State Borders Service of Ukraine.
The main argument just now (because of the discussion of the continued funding) is that it is much cheaper to continue supporting Ukraine than a Russian victory. The other main argument is that a Russian victory would “deal a severe blow to the liberal world order”, and imply that nobody afterwards will take NATO seriously. These arguments only make sense if there is a real prospect of the Kiev Government winning. And there is no such prospect. Maybe the aim is to gain support for escalating the conflict?
So escalation is a real risk. How can the US/NATO escalate?
Firstly, they can increase the sanctions. The problem is that there are not many new options left. By threatening with more “secondary sanctions” they can make life more difficult for countries that have friendly relations with Russia (China, Turkey, India, Khazakstan and so on), and it will of course hurt. They are doing this already, but it is unlikely to achieve much.
Secondly, providing longer reaching missiles, so the Kiev Government can do more damage to for example Moscow and Saint Petersburg. This will open a Pandora’s box as Russia will feel free to provide same sort of weapons to NATO’s foes, for example Iran and Syria. Even so, it is possible the US/NATO will do that, but again, it will hardly change much as the Russian air defence is relatively strong. But of course it will do much damage and increase the risk of a bigger war.
NATO controls the exit from both the Baltic and the Black Seas. The Digital Newspaper Politico stated triumphantly in July 2023: “Sorry Russia, the Baltic Sea is NATO’s lake now”. Source: CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/19/two-maps-show-natos-growth-and-russias-growing-isolation-since-1990.html
Thirdly, they can try to block Russians merchant ships, particularly oil tankers. Russia has a very vulnerable geographical position, as NATO member Denmark alone can block the exit from the Baltic Sea (an idea already floated by Latvia), while Turkey and Greece can block the exit from the Black Sea. Russia would then have to rely exclusively on its Ports in the Arctic (Murmansk, Arkhangelsk) and the Pacific, and the new North-South Transport Corridor through Iran to the Indian Ocean (still in the process of starting up). And of course the rail roads to Central Asia and China. Despite big investments presently being carried out, the capacity of these alternatives is far from sufficient yet. It is not clear how Russia would retaliate. Perhaps by blocking the ports of the Baltic countries and Poland. A very dangerous option which can rapidly spin out of control.
The fourth option is to start a sea blockade of Kaliningrad (population around one million). Its position, encircled by NATO countries on all sides, is very vulnerable. This option has the risk of Russia responding by pushing through the 70 km Suwałki Gap in Lithuania that separates it from Belarus, to lift the blockade. All this could easily lead to an uncontrollable escalation, in the extreme leading to the use of Nuclear weapons. So it is an extremely dangerous option.
The fifth option is direct military intervention in Ukraine. The former (Danish) NATO General Secretary, Anders Fog Rasmussen, is threatening with that as is Macron, but the official US and EU position is still not to get involved with troops. This doesn’t mean that there is no risk that it will happen. The red lines for the support to the Government in Kiev have been moved many times during the conflict, so we are clearly on a slippery slope. A NATO intervention is to my opinion not very likely presently for the simple reason that NATO has discovered the limitations of its present weapons stockpile and military industry, and it runs the risk of incurring very high losses in human lives without gaining much. However, the reaction in NATO if the Kiev troops start collapsing is difficult to predict. “Russia cannot be allowed to win the war in Ukraine”, says French President Macron, and variations of the same phrase has been repeated by Joe Biden, Olaf Scholz, Jens Stoltenberg, and so on. You name it. So the scary question is: what is the implication of “not allowed to”? All-out war?
The US and EU of course want the Kiev Government to win, but if a sober analysis shows that this is very unlikely, then they should clearly state what they want to get out of continued support. If I have understood it correctly, they want on one hand to wear down the military capacity of Russia, and on the other to teach Russia a lesson, so it doesn’t try to expand the war. Both goals imply the sacrifice of tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of Ukranians (and Russians, but I understand that is exactly the idea) without any benefit for Ukraine. This is amoral. This is cynically using them for NATO’s own purpose.
Then President Richard Nixon when he announced the end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, 1973. It was a defeat, but he tried to make it acceptable by calling it “Peace with Honour”. “Tricky Dick” was very much vilified (and with good reason), but this was a moment where he actually acted as a statesman, doing what his predecessors J.F.Kennedy and L.B.Johnson had been unable to do. Biden stopped the war in Afghanistan, now he should try to reach a “Peace with Honour” in Ukraine. Source: White House Photo Office Collection
The saying is that “Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan”. Defeats are always very difficult to digest. When Biden, correctly, withdrew the US troops from Afghanistan, it caused a shock among all those who wanted the war to go on forever. What about democracy and the rights of women? Are they no worth fighting for? And so on. It will not be any easier for the US and its European subordinates to accept a defeat in Ukraine. Of course, it has to be sold differently, for example as “Peace with Honour”, as then President Nixon described the Paris Peace Accords (which ultimately led to total victory for Vietnam). So perhaps they can find a way of presenting it so is sounds honourable - and hence acceptable. We can only hope.
To sum up, as defeat is looming for NATO in Ukraine, we enter a very dangerous period, where things can easily spin out of control. The media are campaigning for ever stronger NATO involvement, and the politicians are painting themselves up in a corner linking their fate to doomed Zelensky, so there are strong forces pushing for escalation. The forces against are extremely weak. There is no real peace movement in Europe at the moment. In the EU the majority of the population still supports financing and sending of military equipment to Ukraine (60% in December 2023). But what happens to the 40% who don’t agree? They have no voice, as almost all the parties are now pro NATO, including most of what used to be the political left. So there is a real risk that NATO will lead us down the path to a full-blown war in Europa, where all will lose.
It is time to stop sleepwalking into the disaster. Instead, negotiations have to be started (a recent poll shows that two thirds of the Americans support this), not only to stop the war in Ukraine, but also to create a new security system in Europe. This implies establishing measures for mutual trust, drawing troops back from the borders, signing of agreements that limit the arms race and reduce the number of troops. It should also include guarantees for the rights of ethnic minorities, including ethnic Russians. Everybody should be able to feel secure.
The alternative is horrible. But will Biden, Scholz, Macron, Stoltenberg, Frederiksen and all the others reconsider? I am not particularly optimistic.
**************
I have commented on the Ucraine conflict since 2014. Click on the links below to read.
April 2014: Does the EU know what it is doing in Ukraine?
September 2014: Will sanctions hurt Russia?
November 2021: How to conserve the peace in Europa
December 2021: Has NATO decided to sacrifice Ukraine?
April 2022: Seems NATO did decide to throw Ukraine under the bus
August 2022: Comical Ali gets the last laugh
January 2023: Oh, what a lovely war!
May 2023: And what if Ukraine loses the war?
July 2023: What are the Ukrainians dying for?
October 2023: Just wondering: Who is it exactly that is being strategically defeated in Ukraine?
