Biden's Ugly Options in Ukraine - Mead
By Walter Russell Mead
We are only six weeks into Vladimir Putins war against Ukraine, but the conflict has already settled into a familiar pattern. Both sides often go into wars with a theory of victory, and it is only when both theories fail that the true shape of the conflict begins to appear.
(snip)
Something similar seems to be happening with Mr. Putins war. The original Russian plan was to break the Ukrainian state by quickly taking the capital and major cities such as Kharkiv. It failed. Ukraine hoped that the shock of military setbacks plus major economic sanctions would either force Mr. Putin to accept peace terms favorable to Ukraine or lead to his overthrow. That plan also seems to have failed, at least for now.
Now both sides are stuck with a war that neither knows how to win, and it is difficult to see the outlines of a compromise peace that both sides can accept. Ukraine cannot accept a peace that leaves it exposed to further Russian aggression and that involves further territorial sacrifice, and Mr. Putin cannot end the war without demonstrable gains at the expense of Ukraine. The logic of warfare now seems to lock the two sides into further, perhaps escalating military, economic and political conflict as each looks for some pathway to victory. Russia is refocusing its military efforts on the east and stepping up the level of violence on the battlefield and against civilians to terrorize Ukrainians into accepting Russian dominance. Ukraine is redoubling its appeal to Western countries for more military aid and tougher economic sanctions.
As the two sides stumble in search of a path to victory, the Biden administration has three ugly options from which to choose. The first option, helping Ukraine win, is the most emotionally appealing and would certainly be the most morally justifiable and politically beneficial, but the risks and costs are high. Russia wont accept defeat before trying every tactic, however brutal, and perhaps every weapon, however murderous. To force Russia to accept failure in Ukraine, the Biden administration would likely have to shift to a wartime mentality, perhaps including the kind of nuclear brinkmanship not seen since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. With China and Iran both committed to weakening American power by any available means, a confrontation with the revisionist powers spearheaded by Russia may prove to be the most arduous challenge faced by an American administration since the height of the Cold War.
But the other two options are also bad. A Russian victory would inflict a massive blow to American prestige and the health of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, especially if the West were seen as forcing Ukraine to surrender to Russian demands. Freezing the conflict is also perilous, as this would presumably leave Russia holding even more Ukrainian territory than it did following the 2014 invasions of Crimea and the Donbas. It would be hard to spin this as anything but a partial victory for Russiaand Mr. Putin would remain free to renew hostilities at a time of his choosing.
More..
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-ugly-options-ukraine-invasion-russia-peace-ceasefire-negotiations-turkey-zelensky-putin-partition-nuclear-chemical-weapons-military-aid-11649099914 (subscription)
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)The other options will result in this country being permanently overrun by tyranny. Keep in mind, we have millions of Putin sympathizers in our midst, eagerly waiting to help him do to us what he is doing to Ukraine. They will pounce on defeat with blood-stained claws.
Chainfire
(17,663 posts)Slogans are easy, solutions are hard. If you had Biden's ear, how would you convince him that his path if wrong?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Ukraine needs bigger weapons. We can't hold back. Obviously I am not referring to supplying nukes, and I am not at this point saying we should send in troops. But Ukraine has to be able to shoot down the missiles that are leveling their cities. They also need to be able to destroy the bases in Russia that are firing missiles at them, as well as supply depots.
Chainfire
(17,663 posts)Lets not quibble over semantics. How, specifically, would you advise Biden to proceed? ""We can't hold back." What does that mean exactly?
If it is a simple problem, then lets hear the simple solution, with details.
Something like, "I propose we send American fighters to bomb Russian targets." That is not so hard, is it?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)I did give some specifics.
I don't know every model number in NATO member inventory.
However, in general I propose we send:
Anti-missile weapons (S-200, S-300?)
Cruise missiles
Jets (Mig-29, SU-??)
High altitude anti-aircraft weapons
Some NATO members have Soviet-era weapons in these categories, which could be ideal because Ukraine already knows how to use them. We could backfill with more modern things for those NATO members, which strengthens them and discourages Putin from his next move (conquest of the remainder of Europe).
Chainfire
(17,663 posts)Or do you just find it uncomfortable to be challenged? Do you think that there may be repercussions, perhaps on a world-wide scale, for using, (I presume) American jets and cruise missiles against Russian Troops? Would you suggest that we keep those missiles inside the borders of Ukraine, or can we hit Russian targets in Russia? Is it smart to play "Russian Roulette with an insane Russian?"
What you suggest would be, for all practical purposes, the US declaring war on Russia. That is why Biden is taking a less aggressive path then what you would like to see.
None of us have the knowledge, the resources the access to information, diplomatic acumen and experience, or the overall perspective that our President does. It is silly for non-professionals to be second-guessing his judgement on the mater, especially to the point of suggesting what weapons systems that WE should be providing to the Ukrainians to use against the Russians. If that sounds like attitude, so be it.
Biden is doing fine. Support him.
Ray Bruns
(4,120 posts)No it wouldn't. Putin has failed to take major cities only because we have supplied thousands of defensive weapons. What the Ukrainians need are offensive weapons (planes, tanks, artillery) to push the russians out.
Ukraine will not accept Russian soldiers on their territory and Putin won't pull them out unless he is forced too.
The only thing Putin is trying to figure out right now is how he gets his ass out of the situation he is in with his head still attached to his torso.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)You lied about what I said, then got sarcastic. That's not a challenge, that's attitude (and I'm putting it politely).
What I suggest is for all practical purposes, what we are doing now, but more effectively.
Stifling dissent is not what Dems do.
I do support Biden.
I am a Dem though - I don't idolize leaders nor do I believe in infallibility.
JustAnotherGen
(31,942 posts)When I read of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - and the Ukrainians noble defense of their homeland against this brutal and unwarranted 'war' -
That there are never options for Europe.
My husband is standing by and ready to go train Italians soliders in Poland or anywhere 0 as a former Special Forces Officer for Italy. Urban Warfare, Jungle Warfare, Tactical Shooter -
has literally said to me: I won't go AWOL just because I now have dual citizenship in America.
When the children/grandchildren of former Fascists are ready to go fight -
It's time for Europe to open the floodgates of hell in Ukraine.
We need to do one thing - stand down and stay out of their way.