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.
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.