Moon of Alabama has a thoughtful overview of the likely outcome in Ukraine. In essence it boils down to what I’ve been maintaining—that Russia has no interest in occupying all of Ukraine. Demilitarization—in the sense of ensuring that Ukraine will not be a NATO proxy to threaten Russia—is the minimum end game. Destruction of the Neo-Nazi grip on the country is highly desirable from Russia’s standpoint, but isolating that element in the extreme west of Ukraine appears to be a viable alternative. In that case the rump Ukraine that remains would be more of a problem for the EU—and, in particular, for Poland, where multiple millions of western Ukrainians have already headed. Unfortunately for Poland, its government has done nothing that would lead Russia to go out of its way to help with that potentially huge political problem. If the Neo-Nazi elements want to continue an insurgency within that rump Ukraine—with violence spilling over into Poland—that will likely be of little concern to Russia.
My dad is a human encyclopedia for history (I might be biased, but hold your judgement on that). He grew up in poverty in an abusive alcoholic home. At the time the government still funded Catholic school. He started at 4. Graduated at 17. Books were his escape from his living hell. He turned 18 as a marine trapped on a mountain fighting in Vietnam watching his friends die. He came home and became a journalist, but at 29 decided he wanted better for his family than could be afforded for a journalist’s salary, so he moved on to a more lucrative career. Our gain, the world’s loss. I asked him about one of the articles you posted and got a lengthy response which I am pasting from his text below. I didn’t give any context. I found his reply insightful and similar to what you wrote (I did not send him your article because I wanted insight on one you linked to as a separate analysis).
“Hi. I was confused about the article. In any event, the issue here is NATO. A little history is in order. First, Stalin defeated Hitler. Eighty percent of German casualties were on the Eastern front. The success of the D-Day Normandy landings were important in keeping Stalin from over-running Western Europe, which he certainly would have done had they failed. Stalin was acutely aware that in 1814, Czar Alexander I, after forcing Napoleon out of Russia, pursued him to Paris. The Napoleonic wars ended with Russian cavalry in Paris. Stalin wanted to emulate him, spreading the Communist revolution to the Atlantic. NATO was formed after Stalin’s death In 1953 but with Stalin’s aspirations still in the air. It was a defensive pact — a shield against Soviet expansionism. After the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO changed. Instead of a shield to protect Western Europe, it became a sword aimed at the Russians. During negotiations prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, James Baker
, Bush I’s Secretary of State, promised Gorbachev three times that NATO would not move “one inch” to the East. Der Spegiel, the German magazine, wrote an article early this month saying the Germans promised Gorbachev the same thing. In 1996, NATO began accepting former Eastern Bloc countries into alliance. The last to be accepted were the Baltic states. Although formerly part of Russia, they are heavily Germanic from virtue of their creation by the Teutonic Knights in the late Middle Ages. Ukraine and Belorussia are different. Both are ethnically Slavic, the same as the Russians. Ukraine was an integral part of Russia for hundreds of years. What we are seeing in Ukraine today is a civil war. The United States might have played a productive role in peace mediations and possibly prevented the war. The neocons in charge of policy today have nixed that. I think the war will end in partition and bitter feelings all around. Our policy here is comprehensively incomprehensible. Sad.
We have no vital national interests in Ukraine except peace. We tried nation-building in Iraq, and that didn’t work out too well. This whole affair is a disaster. Ukraine is being destroyed. An idealist would say the Ukrainians are creating their own country by dying for it. The problem is, even if they win, which I doubt, they lose. Victory means winning a war-ravaged landscape with a hateful neighbor to the east. There will be no end to the animosity. The same people who took us into catastrophic wars in a Iraq and Afghanistan are doing the same thing in Ukraine, with the same results.
What’s the point? Good question. At the end of the First World War, after all the bloodshed and destruction, no one could remember what the war was about. The same thing was true in Vietnam, if not more so. “
If I'm one of these new states, I have to think twice before allowing the US to open a diplomatic mission. They saw what happened to Libya within a few years of normalized relations.
The Russians and Eastern Ukrainians, who have been at war with the Western Ukrainians at least since 2014, will provide a buffer between Russia and the threatened U.S.-instigated "insurgency".
I'm really embarrassed to be a U.S. citizen these days.
Thoughtful Ukraine Overview From MoA
My dad is a human encyclopedia for history (I might be biased, but hold your judgement on that). He grew up in poverty in an abusive alcoholic home. At the time the government still funded Catholic school. He started at 4. Graduated at 17. Books were his escape from his living hell. He turned 18 as a marine trapped on a mountain fighting in Vietnam watching his friends die. He came home and became a journalist, but at 29 decided he wanted better for his family than could be afforded for a journalist’s salary, so he moved on to a more lucrative career. Our gain, the world’s loss. I asked him about one of the articles you posted and got a lengthy response which I am pasting from his text below. I didn’t give any context. I found his reply insightful and similar to what you wrote (I did not send him your article because I wanted insight on one you linked to as a separate analysis).
“Hi. I was confused about the article. In any event, the issue here is NATO. A little history is in order. First, Stalin defeated Hitler. Eighty percent of German casualties were on the Eastern front. The success of the D-Day Normandy landings were important in keeping Stalin from over-running Western Europe, which he certainly would have done had they failed. Stalin was acutely aware that in 1814, Czar Alexander I, after forcing Napoleon out of Russia, pursued him to Paris. The Napoleonic wars ended with Russian cavalry in Paris. Stalin wanted to emulate him, spreading the Communist revolution to the Atlantic. NATO was formed after Stalin’s death In 1953 but with Stalin’s aspirations still in the air. It was a defensive pact — a shield against Soviet expansionism. After the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO changed. Instead of a shield to protect Western Europe, it became a sword aimed at the Russians. During negotiations prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, James Baker
, Bush I’s Secretary of State, promised Gorbachev three times that NATO would not move “one inch” to the East. Der Spegiel, the German magazine, wrote an article early this month saying the Germans promised Gorbachev the same thing. In 1996, NATO began accepting former Eastern Bloc countries into alliance. The last to be accepted were the Baltic states. Although formerly part of Russia, they are heavily Germanic from virtue of their creation by the Teutonic Knights in the late Middle Ages. Ukraine and Belorussia are different. Both are ethnically Slavic, the same as the Russians. Ukraine was an integral part of Russia for hundreds of years. What we are seeing in Ukraine today is a civil war. The United States might have played a productive role in peace mediations and possibly prevented the war. The neocons in charge of policy today have nixed that. I think the war will end in partition and bitter feelings all around. Our policy here is comprehensively incomprehensible. Sad.
We have no vital national interests in Ukraine except peace. We tried nation-building in Iraq, and that didn’t work out too well. This whole affair is a disaster. Ukraine is being destroyed. An idealist would say the Ukrainians are creating their own country by dying for it. The problem is, even if they win, which I doubt, they lose. Victory means winning a war-ravaged landscape with a hateful neighbor to the east. There will be no end to the animosity. The same people who took us into catastrophic wars in a Iraq and Afghanistan are doing the same thing in Ukraine, with the same results.
What’s the point? Good question. At the end of the First World War, after all the bloodshed and destruction, no one could remember what the war was about. The same thing was true in Vietnam, if not more so. “
If I'm one of these new states, I have to think twice before allowing the US to open a diplomatic mission. They saw what happened to Libya within a few years of normalized relations.
Excellent analysis and totally logical.
The Russians and Eastern Ukrainians, who have been at war with the Western Ukrainians at least since 2014, will provide a buffer between Russia and the threatened U.S.-instigated "insurgency".
I'm really embarrassed to be a U.S. citizen these days.