Ukraine Realpolitik

A post by reader, commenter and sometime poster PaulL.

I read many recent comments on the situation and negotiation in Ukraine, including one this morning from our host.

I share the concerns about rewarding Russia for this war by crystalising the borders, and the downstream incentives of that. The question in my mind though is “compared to what?” Compared to a world where Russia never invaded? Yes, but that’s not the world we’re in. So what are the actual alternatives?

Firstly, let’s start with the basics. Russia invaded Ukraine in an act of aggression that should never have happened, and shouldn’t be acceptable anywhere in the world. America had intelligence at the time that Russia were going to invade, and nobody (myself included) really believed it. Europe were actively in bed with Russia, buying gas and generally attempting to integrate them into Europe, despite Russia having already invaded Crimea, shot down a commercial airliner (and denied it), and been generally stirring up trouble in eastern Ukraine for some time.

I won’t say it was unprovoked, only because it’s a non-sensical term in a region that has animosities and territorial claims stretching back millennia. Anyone can find a “provocation” somewhere in the past, or claims about what someone promised or didn’t. I will say that there was no action that met the standards under international law for an attack by Russia – no cross border incursions, no military action. So ultimately any “provocation” was based on Russia’s insecurities and hurt feelings, which have no place in international law.

I’ll also note that America and Europe (and Russia) provided security guarantees to Ukraine when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Those guarantees weren’t honoured when Russia invaded Crimea, and weren’t honored, nor even threatened to be honoured when there was credible intelligence that Russia was going to invade. If, at that time, Europe or America had clearly said to Putin “we provided security guarantees to Ukraine, if a single Russian tank crosses the border we’re going to destroy it”, then the invasion potentially wouldn’t have happened. Neither Europe or America did that.

Finally, I’ll also say that whilst people aren’t talking about it any more, there were many atrocities committed by Russia in the invasion, and I expect ongoing. Leaving aside the many war dead and injured, there were and presumably still are credible accounts of rape, abuse, forceable removal of children, looting etc etc. It is repugnant to me that such actions should go unpunished, but they often do, including in many countries where the people aren’t white. The atrocities that go on in Arab and African wars are equally horrific, and equally unpunished. Unfortunately this was the way of the world before the modern enlightenment, and continues to be the way of things in more than half of the modern world. Civilisation is a wonderful thing, and unfortunately it hasn’t reached everywhere (and arguably is in retreat).

So, having noted that the best course of action, avoiding the war entirely, didn’t happen, let’s turn our minds quickly to the outlines of the current deal. Leaving aside the usual Trump bluster, minerals and all that, let’s get to the fundamentals.

It seems to me that the likely result of any deal now is:

• Russia gets to keep Crimea and a chunk of eastern Ukraine
• The borders are probably somewhere around the current frontlines
• There’ll be promises about joining or not joining NATO, but realistically Ukraine was never eligible to join NATO, and any promise is subject to changing conditions in the future
• Russia will continue to persecute any people in the occupied territory who are still “Ukrainian”
• Russia is a somewhat free country – people can leave. Logically many of the Ukrainians who are being persecuted will leave, either to asylum in Europe or America, or to the residual Ukraine who will presumably accept them. Ethnic cleansing, in other words
• The resultant ex-Ukrainian territory will now be populated with Russians and Ukrainians who are happy to be Russian. So there’s no real going back – any referendum in those territories would vote to remain Russian
• Security guarantees will be given to Ukraine, presumably by Europe and America. Those security guarantees will be just as worthless as the ones they were given last time, so there will be no real disincentive to Russia just invading again in a few years, just like happened when we all let them keep Crimea

So, that sounds like a general shit sandwich, and I see why most commentators think that’s awful.

So, now the Realpolitik bit. Compared to what? What are the other options?

The first option is to drive Russia out by force. The west could do this, but we don’t want to. At every step Europe and America have carefully given Ukraine exactly enough equipment and support to freeze the frontlines where they are. Enough to stop Russia moving forwards, never enough to properly push Russia back. Despite all the commentators wittering about how it’d be awful for Russia to win, our governments appear to be consciously attempting to freeze the war right where it is.

So, if we wanted to drive Russia out by force, we’d need the west to step up. That mostly means Europe – they have the most to lose, and the most to gain. Easiest would be to establish air dominance and then bomb the crap out of Russian lines. The west could do this if we were willing to fly our air forces in Ukraine, and therefore directly attack Russian troops. That would put the west at war with Russia. Nobody is going to do that.

We could try delivering far more modern weapons and equipment to Ukraine for them to do the heavy lifting themselves. But we’re running out of time to do that, and the west are worried about their more advanced weapons systems falling into Russian hands (and probably worried about them in Ukrainian hands). Even using those systems against Russia gives Russia (and China) information about how they work. I think I’d personally do this anyway, no point in having weapons systems we don’t use, but I can see the argument for why we don’t. The reality is if we wanted to do this we could have done it years ago, clearly we don’t want to do it.

So, if we’re not going to drive Russia out by force, the next option is for Ukraine to just keep fighting. They’re making no progress (and probably won’t), and so this will just continue to kill Ukranians and Russians. Europe and America will have to continue pretending to support, which is expensive but only prolongs the war. That can’t continue forever, so eventually there’ll be peace. And at that point, exactly the same options as today will be available. So, I’d argue this isn’t a real option unless you’re just a ditherer who can’t make your mind up. Trump and Musk are right on this – whatever options you think we’ll have in the future after another year or two of war, we also have today. Why keep fighting?

The next option is to try to drive Russia out through some mechanism other than force. Sanctions and other punishment. We could again have done this years ago, but we’re carefully avoiding actually doing it. Even Ukraine didn’t cut the Russian gas pipelines that run through their territory, perhaps because the west told them not to, perhaps because of other reasons. In reality the west has avoided any sanctions that require anyone in the west to actually sacrifice anything. I’m not sure that sanctions could force Russia out (I suspect not), but I am sure that we haven’t really gone hard on sanctions. Proper sanctions would involve a blockade. That would be similar to declaring war on Russia. We’re not going to do it.

Last is to negotiate a better deal. The key bit is territory. Why would Russia negotiate a deal that has the border anywhere other than the territory they already hold? They can just stay where they are – we’ve already proven we can’t make them give up the territory. Unless someone is prepared to credibly threaten to take it by force, then the borders will actually crystallise where they are, and any deal that’s better than that is probably a good deal. So, what is the actual plan to negotiate a better deal? What is the bargaining chip?

It’s all well and good for Europe to have principles about whether there should be a deal, but Europe has fundamentally shown that they shouldn’t have a seat at the table, because they’re not serious. They largely caused the problem, and it absolutely remains true that they’ve been free-riding on American defence. They’re trying to have an opinion that America should continue to subsidise European defence, and they’re really upset that anyone thinks they maybe should pay their share.

When they decide that they want to do something different than America, it becomes painfully clear that they actually have zero capability. In what world should an America that’s running a massive deficit of their own continue to transfer money to Ukraine to prolong a war that kills thousands of Ukrainians, but won’t end any differently than if it ends today? Europe and Ukraine in theory can ignore America, and continue to fight. But America would stop supporting and stop paying. Europe, despite being plenty wealthy enough to support Ukraine and deliver the necessary equipment, have proven that they’re unwilling to do it. So why would anyone care what they think?

I’m genuinely interested in what alternatives people have to offer? I can see all the objections to Trump’s negotiating process (I’m no fan of it either). But what is the deal that people think someone will come to that is any different than what I outlined above?

And to our hosts question in an earlier post, what does this tell the rest of the world, including NZ? That perhaps America spending 4% of their GDP on defending the rest of the world, while the rest of the world spends 1% of GDP on pretending to have their own defence, isn’t sustainable? Some of us have been saying that for a while, but apparently it isn’t clear unless someone starts making it clear. Perhaps in that sense Trump is doing us all a favour by forcing the day of reckoning early enough that it might actually prevent the next war (the next war obviously being Taiwan).