I rarely agree with Kissinger but he's right as far as I can see.
I'd be the first to deride Russia's military effectiveness. But consider that the vast majority of the world is against them largely on every single front. And you see why they've earned their reputation as a super power.
Russia is big with plenty of fossils. They could ruin the world simply by continuing to use their fossil fuels without regard to climate change.
They could nuke themselves.
They could conduct a few missile tests in space and precipitate a Kessler syndrome situation.
They could trade nuclear secrets for more kamikazi drones.
Do you see where I'm going?
If you want Russia destroyed they you are asking for a world war. Peace requires we put up with them and encourage all governments to work for global health.
It's like asking for peace in Europe in 1939. I'm afraid it's a bit late; no attempts to pacify would bring any sustained peace. They will only bring about a Russia more prepared to fight a bigger war :(
«I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.»
This is incredibly depressing, but the faster we pass the phases of denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, turn towards acceptance, and prepare for more and harder fighting, the higher are our chances to win.
actual sustainable peace requires denuclearization (and possible fragmentation) of the Russian federation because a precedent has to be set for the international order that threat of weapons of mass destruction cannot be used for annexation. Right now, by arming Ukraine, NATO is stripping Russia of conventional forces that keep the nucleae weapons safe and the federation together. Hopefully the emdgame will be achieved politically vs by first strike.
Not really. We tend to anthropomorphize countries in general conversations but this is really about lessons that political leadership needs to be taught.
There are several current lessons leaders world over have already learned from this conflict - eg. (1) never give up nuclear weapons as the security guarantees won't be honoured (2) the destructive power and accuracy of networked modern light weapons is so great that it is impossible to hold territory conventionally if the other side has access to these
I don't understand why they are being ridiculed about military inefficiency. That's without any ill will or sarcasm towards Russia the best part of this whole situation. Literally everything would be worse if their military had been more efficient.
They are being ridiculed because their performance has been ridiculous?
Once you set aside the magic thinking idea that laughing will make Russia fight better you can see the funny side of the "Russia 'bout to find out why the US can't afford universal healthcare" memes.
I balk at calls for peace from Henry Kissinger, who didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people for his own personal political gains. Nevertheless, I did read the article.
Kissinger's framework for understanding the world is still rooted in an outdated cold war mentality and this article seems like he is naively trying to shove the cat back in the bag and return to a paradigm that he felt he understood.
But I don't think we can return to the way things were. Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power, which it has demonstrated is considerably weaker than we had previously understood. I think this conflict has actually weakened the power of a nuclear arsenal considerably compared to conventional military strength, because it really has no strategic use beyond nuclear deterrence.
While I agree with you, I think this information will already be understood in coming negotiations. Although the author’s legitimacy is questionable, I read the solution he proposes as sensible:
End of war. Removal of the army from Ukraine except for Crimea, at first and international oversight of referenda for the regions.
Potential threat of cost of reparations and what it would mean for Russia to lose is probably what keeps Russia fighting, and away from the negotiation table.
WWII in Europe ended not just with the fall of Berlin, but with the Marshall plan. If something like that happened after WWI, Europe would have been very different.
But enacting a Marshall plan requires a definite military defeat first. Else it's pacifying the aggressor again, with the same efficacy as in 1938.
Exactly. A Marshall plan after WWI could be great.
Preventing WWI is a different matter entirely though. It was a very bloody lesson that seriously changes Western mentality; I suspect quite some reasons from 2022 just would not be understood in 1912.
Do you think Ukraine would accept this abdication? If the world gives up on Ukraine, I would not be surprised if they just said fuck it and sent a bunch of missiles into Moscow.
In terms of world peace, I fear the best we can hope for is a prolonged stalemate, or something unexpectedly changing in Russian politics. In the past, I might have hoped that Ukraine would trade invaded land for NATO membership, but it seems this is untenable for both Russia and Europe (e.g. Hungary).
Also, leaving a country to die would surely cause mass political unrest across Europe.
With hindsight most of WW2 could have been avoided if UK/France invaded Germany while its army was busy in Poland. Even during the Sudeten crisis, though this would have probably required a soviet intervention which would have been problematic. Then again the German Army wasn’t that well prepared for an all-out war back in 1938 and might have been bogged down in Czechoslovakia similarly to how Russia is now stuck in Ukraine. Support for Hitler in Germany wasn’t that necessarily that strong prior to the conquest of France especially amongst the military leadership* so a coup wouldn’t have been out of the question. The Battle of France pretty much turned Hitler into a German Napoleon.
* mainly because they didn’t believe that a quick victory was an option and feared a repeat of WW2. They obviously wanted to win a war against France eventually.
> Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power
Arguably dependence on Russian oil & gas was as or more important. Basically countries in the region had a choice either pay the market price (or more if you don’t have access to the global market to buy natural gas) or submit to Russia politically and get massive discounts. Not an easy choice to make for poor post-soviet countries with no natural resources.
e.g. I don’t think the Belarusian regime would survive long without energy subsidies from Russia. The situation in Ukraine prior to 2014/2004 was not that different.
That's a fair point; military power isn't the only way to project power. I do think, though, that the war in Ukraine may lead to us reevaluating just what nuclear power provides you. Certainly it is a deterrent to attack and especially a deterrent to a nuclear attack. But with time, especially after nuclear threats from Putin and Kim repeatedly prove to be empty threats, its ability to project power beyond a country's own borders seems more and more limited.
I balk at calls for peace from Henry Kissinger, who didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people for his own personal political gains. Nevertheless, I did read the article.
“War monger suggests peace”
Look at his track record! He’s wrong we need more war!
Not at all. Kissinger specifically frames this as a war between two great powers over a conventionally armed nation. In this framing, western nations have the power to end this war and set the terms for peace. But I don't believe this is true, and I feel this is a relic of a different era.
Western nations can influence the war - sending Ukraine more arms, or cutting off supply would certainly influence its chances. But fundamentally Ukraine is a sovereign nation and will decide peace on its own terms. Eastern European nations threatened by a world order where their sovereignty is subordinate to Russia's will support Ukraine on their terms. This is just fundamentally not a Russia v. NATO war as much as it might be more convenient if it were.
You're missing Kissinger's point (or perhaps I'm artificially seeing my point in Kissinger's argument).
Let's continue to refuse to deny Russia at various world forums. And Russia just burns it's fossil fuels intensely. The damage from climate change is catestrophic and WE LOSE.
Let's say we continue to shun Russia economically bringing it to it's knees. How does it make money if no one will buy it's goods on the open market? It sells what it can on the black market moving oil is hard. What about selling DPRK and Iran nuclear and ballistic missile secrets? WE LOSE.
Let's say a nuclear attack is carried on on Russia and it's surrounded by a ballistic missile defense system. So it nuclears Siberia to oblivion with purposefully dirty nuclear weapons. WE LOSE.
Let's say we enter conventional war with Russia and it just blasts ITS OWN satillites out of space directly above it staring Kessler cascade that wiped out all satillites and ends the prospect of space travel for hundreds of years. WE LOSE.
How will we prevent all these things? They are all born of Russia considered themselves no longer part of the world community?
TL;DR Kissinger knows NATO can trounce Russia ina war maybe even a nuclear one. But he realises the cost would be too great even from a complete victory with civilization ending potentials.
I'm rejecting Kissinger's entire framework. This isn't a war between NATO (or the US) and Russia, so as much as we might want to end the war, we can't. The entire premise of his article presumes that the west can determine the outcome at all apart from tilting the scales one way or another.
Are you suggesting NATO has not had any influence on this war?
The US just agreed a further 2bn in military aid including a patriot system.
Ukraine only fighting chance has been due to NATOs support.
Eastern Europe has always been a buffer between NATO and Russia in a landwar it's obviously preferable for Russia to lose in Ukraine than in a NATO territory from NATOs perspective.
What did you think was going on here it not a war between NATO and Russia?!
No one cares about the other wars around the world with even worse humanitarian disasters. Here marks the real criticism people have of Kissinger, real politik is ugly and we don't like looking at it or those who talk about it.
I think I clearly stated that the US and NATO has had influence, sufficient to tilt the war in either direction, but I also think it's unrealistic to believe that influence can be leveraged to end the war let alone set the terms for peace.
The world in the 21st century is not one in which individual sovereign countries are beholden to the dictates of great powers and where therefore a simplified framework for understanding global politics that only considers great powers is useful.
Ukraine fought off the initial Russian attack without US and NATO, do you think they would stop fighting now if support were withdrawn? How exactly do you think the US and NATO could force Ukraine and Russia to the table? Do you think that eastern European countries would withdraw support from Ukraine even absent the US and NATO when Russian incursions on neighbouring territory represent very real threats to them? The entire premise that the US can end this war feels like a hopelessly naive relic of a different era.
My own point of view is that the only way this will end peacefully is with the full withdraw of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. The question of how this can be achieved without Russia becoming destabilized and fracturing, which I don't feel is desirable, is certainly a concern, although I fear that that may be the only thing that leads to their withdraw. (See Timothy Snyder's piece on the subject: How does the Russo-Ukrainian War end? [1])
>The world in the 21st century is not one in which individual sovereign countries are beholden to the dictates of great powers and where therefore a simplified framework for understanding global politics that only considers great powers is useful.
What reason is there to think this is true? What I see is the appearance of a post-realpolitik world in the wake of an utterly dominant U.S. hegemony. Realpolitik is still in effect; it's just sufficiently hidden behind the stability of a U.S. centric world order and the ongoing Nash equilibrium of the current borders in most of Europe that some people can convince themselves the world has fundamentally changed. It's hard to distinguish between a post-realpolitik world and Nash equilibrium. On the surface they look identical.
I don't believe at all that Ukraine fought off the initial invasion alone.
In fact I think that's been categorically disproven with green berets admitting to providing on ground training extensively before the invasion and admissions of extensive intelligence support from those AWACS weren't circling the black sea for training purposes.
Even an admission that the base near Poland which was struck was the primary place western troops trained Ukrainian troops.
Likely a cohort of Ukrainian troops which were trained and equipt were already present in Ukraine likely at the instance of the US when intelligence predicted invasion within a year.
Why would Ukraine turn it down?
I'm sorry but the miracle of the Ukrainian farmers defense is a laughable fairy tale it was achieved through careful preparation and huge military losses. All driven by savvy NATO advisors.
Whether or not the Ukrainian government really believed Russia would invade is another question. Biden suggests not.
It's not a war between NATO and Russia. It's a proxy war (on NATO's part). The difference matters.
If this were a war between NATO and Russia, all those bases that Russian missiles are coming from would be gone. So would Russia's air force. And then the ground-attack planes would start in on all the Russian troops in Ukraine. And they'd feel free to go after every mass of troops that Russia brought anywhere near the border.
None of that is happening. That's how you know it's not a war between NATO and Russia.
To your larger point: You think Russia has the power to destroy the world, so we should let them have their way with Ukraine. You're like a business owner who doesn't interfere when the street gang rapes people outside, because they might burn your business if you did. Can't you see how morally bankrupt that is?
In addition to being nice, Russians should grow a spine. The American people of 70s were massively better than current Russians: they stopped the Vietnam War by protesting against it.
The American people of 70s didn't face violence, torture, and over a decade of prison for protesting.
It is not a fair comparison, the ship has long sailed for Russian protest movement, when rest of the world was turning the blind eye for the past decade.
Let's see if Russians might turn things around before the Americans did!
I don't expect so but it's in part because by shunning the Russia people we've weakened their ability to resist their government. It's ridiculous that the first response from social media was to block Russia's and now be a conduit for the average Russia to see the truth about the war.
More than that: if the West pulls away and stops supporting Ukraine, it will not make peace.
Imagine Russian army overcoming the remaining Ukraine defenses and occupying 100% of it's territory. So you think the people of Ukraine will grudgingly lay down arms, and return to normal daily life? Come on.
Ukraine has always had a strong separatist movement while a part of the USSR. It was a founding member of the USSR, but the last vestiges of armed separatist forces were only suppressed by the end of 1950s. This was under Stalin, a tyrant with a very efficient suppression machine and no qualms about killing his subjects whatsoever.
A peer comment suggests that it could be fine to just let Russia have what it's currently grabbed, and cease the fire ASAP. I think it'd be the one of the worst courses of action.
An Ukraine defeated by Russia would be another Afghanistan. With current technology, and with the general ineptitude that the Russian state repeatedly demonstrates throughout the campaign, there's no doubt that guerilla warfare will be widespread and hurtful.
This is on top of letting an authoritarian regime to conquer by war and annex a sovereign European state, right next to "real" Western states. This would send many signals, of all the wrong sorts, of what the Wast is going to put up with.
In general, an abscess, once it exists, should be treated, one way or another, until it disappears completely. Stopping to treat it because it hurts is a way to make it hurt more, and become more dangerous.
With Russia‘s nukes, it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia. It’s possible they wouldn’t be so cautious of Russia if it had disarmed its nuclear capabilities.
EDIT: fixed the multiple wording mistakes that made the statement nonsense from start to finish.
It seems unlikely that Ukraine will invade Ukraine, because Ukraine occupies Ukraine and has done so ever since Ukraine became Ukraine.
Perhaps you mean that it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia due to Russian nuclear capability? What do you mean when you say "without Russia's nukes" (do you mean "with")?
Russia has a regime that’s clearly hostile to Ukraine. Additionally, they have a history of trying to assisted people in their way politically. So, if you’re successfully pushing back the army, you have the momentum to try to overthrow this regime and ensure some long term security on your border. Whether or not that would work or be wise would be separate calculus but nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable leader adds at least a little bit uncertainty that would make you pause in addition to everything else.
I'm reminded of the classic Onion headline: "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point"
The deal he proposes is that Russia returns to the pre-2022 borders, and Ukraine joins NATO. That second point is critical, because without that protection by Western powers, Russia would surely rearm and reinvade Ukraine in a few years.
The alternative is that the war continues for several years, until Putin finally loses the will to fight, or is overthrown. That latter prospect, while initially appealing, would almost certainly result in a new leader who is just as aggressive, but more effective and less isolated.
Or, potentially, Russia itself might break up under the strain of prolonged war. We've never had a civil war in a nuclear power, but if you think that has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention so far.
That was (mostly) a peaceful split, with countries that had been dominated by the Soviets for 50 years gaining independence. The rest of the Russian empire has been under Moscow/St Petersburg for 500 years. The ethnic Russian elites will not give up their Asian territories without a fight.
And, after what's happened to Ukraine, none of the new states will give up their nukes. We'll have a nuclear armed Dagestan, run by whoever was aggressive enough to seize power.
This is what is called over-updating on a single event. Probably the key difference is that each soviet republic was already a discrete identity based on ethnic, cultural, and historic ties, and so the default was simply to revert to that identity. For a state with no clear discrete sub-identities, nor with enough economic or military autonomy to survive as an independent state, civil war becomes much more likely as these lines are forcibly drawn.
Current Russia has plenty of sub-identities though. It’s the worlds last colonial empire, and the division lines are obvious to everyone there. The only thing keeping it all together is the army and police.
Informative thread, so thanks for that. This seems to be the key issue:
>Ethnicity, race and culture is not enough for the new states to work out. For them to succeed they must be able to pay their bills. Ergo, the principle of economic clusters will be at least as important for defining their borders as the ethnic or cultural one
Which one wins out? The fact that there is a conflict between economic cluster and ethnic cluster seems to strongly raise the likelihood of a civil war.
True he is a war criminal and probably an awful person in most ways. That does not mean his understanding of the situation is incorrect. And I can’t disagree with most of what he’s saying from an utilitarian point of view.
To be fair I would expect a cold blooded sociopath/psychopath to be more rational than most people (e.g. Kitchner is not unlike Hannibal Lecter in that way)
I'd be the first to deride Russia's military effectiveness. But consider that the vast majority of the world is against them largely on every single front. And you see why they've earned their reputation as a super power.
Russia is big with plenty of fossils. They could ruin the world simply by continuing to use their fossil fuels without regard to climate change.
They could nuke themselves.
They could conduct a few missile tests in space and precipitate a Kessler syndrome situation.
They could trade nuclear secrets for more kamikazi drones.
Do you see where I'm going?
If you want Russia destroyed they you are asking for a world war. Peace requires we put up with them and encourage all governments to work for global health.