Ukraine Endgame--Dueling Perspectives

It seems now that the prevailing wisdom is that the American proxy war on Russia (via Ukraine) is all over—except for the shouting, of which one expects substantial amounts. Friday Seymour Hersh presented a fantasy view of the type of negotiations the US Deep State would like to see. Everyone had a good laugh. But now let’s look at some more serious perspectives. First we’ll present a more sober view (than that peddled by Hersh) of what the Neocons hope to get away with. It’s presented by Prof. Nicolai Petro, a political scientist from Rhode Island University who specializes in Russian matters. Overall, I rate it as a sober presentation, but a bridge too far. The full video, which is actually the second half of a longer one, runs a little over a half an hour. I have edited this excerpt to make it more readable:

How The War In Ukraine Will End | Prof. Nicolai N. Petro

Yep. It's over in all but name. Strategically, the War in Ukraine has been decided, the only question is how long will the West continue the senseless slaughter of the Ukrainians for tactical reasons or out of institutional inability. As always, the neocons drive themselves into a corner from where there is no escaping. At that point they usually open a new front to distract from their failures and just walk away, pretending they had always said the opposite and everybody else was to blame. As Alexander Mercouris says, these people have no reverse gear, but they keep running into walls that get other people's noses bloody.

This is the second interview with Nicolai N. Petro, a Professor for Political Science at Rhode Island University. In this part we talk about possible scenarios for coming to a negotiated settlement and what's needed for that. It is still unlikely that Russia would want to occupy the entirety of Ukraine since that would come with tremendous costs and long-term risks. So even though Russia will dictate the terms of the settlement, there is room for Ukraine to manoeuvre if it just finally frees itself from the grip of its western puppeteers. But then again, the neocons might just get bored and throw Kiev away anyhow.

Q: Is 2:15 there anything that would entice the United States--realistically--to come to an end [of the war]? Maybe the the elections 2024? What 2:23 could be an argument to tell the US, 'Look, we really, really need to sit down with the Russians to come to an end of this.

A: I don't see many ways of reaching 2:37 the likely candidates to emerge from the current electoral competition.

...

Among the main contenders we have all the The Usual 4:20 Suspects who support the traditional American Imperial approach in world affairs. So what would change that? The only thing that has worked in the past has been to create enough of a shock temporarily in the American Elite to force a moment of pause and reflection. Some sort of devastating consequence, in other words. I think for example of the tragic deaths of well over a hundred Marines in Lebanon in an explosion. So, some event that really brings home the possibility that wars have consequences for Americans, too, and also for American soldiers--not just for for foreigners. The realization that you can't simply throw money at the problem and expect people to to fight on behalf of our ideals for that money.

Or sail some carrier battle groups through the region? Or proclaim that America is the most powerful country in the world?

I don't know what could could cause that transformation. I think what is more likely is that, if Russia's strategy is correct--which, gauging by the shift in rhetoric that has taken place over the last two months, arguing that Russia is now winning or is in the process of winning the war on its terms, as what amounts to a long-term siege of Ukraine--then the West will not so much abandon Ukraine, it will however effectively withdraw slowly, all the while declaring that it is not withdrawing. We will simply see the resources being sent to Ukraine gradually dwindling and Ukrainian leaders having to slowly and reluctantly accept that they have, indeed, been deceived and abandoned by the West. I think that's one of the most likely outcomes, and the one that I think is currently being prepared for public consumption in the West. That's how I read the two major articles that have appeared recently--one in NBC news--on pressure by France and Germany on Ukraine, and possibly the United States also, to begin negotiations, and then more recently along the same lines in Bild Zeitung on the secret plan that Scholz and Biden are 7:48 concocting.

I agree that that’s one of the scenarios the Neocons are currently toying with—because they really, really do need an exit strategy. The problem with any strategy along these lines is that it fails to take Russia’s demands and stated goals seriously. As we’ve seen over the years, Putin is a very serious guy who doesn’t bluff. He plays from a position of strength, which is where he’s at now. That’s the reason for his swagger these days. He knows he gets the final say. He went into the Special Military Operation having demanded a new European security architecture along lines that he had outlined in two draft treaties. He believes that goal is now within reach. Will Schryver describes this brilliantly today:

Open Defiance

In my view, the single most meaningful consequence of the NATO/Ukraine proxy war against Russia is that most of the major geopolitical players outside the imperial realm are suddenly in open defiance of the capricious "rules-based international order" and its rapacious monetary system.

The catalyst for this rebellion was that Vladimir Putin’s Russia stood alone amongst the kings, princes, presidents, and prime ministers of a trembling world, turned to the masters of empire, and said, “Not an inch further. In fact, you must withdraw to your 1997 status, and take all your armaments with you, beginning with your missiles in Poland and Romania.”

The masters of empire laughed him to scorn, and then encouraged their #MotherOfAllProxyArmies in Ukraine to concentrate to the Donbass and the Azov pursuant to conquering Novorossiya and Crimea once and for all … then on to Moscow.

This war was anything but “unprovoked Russian aggression”. This war was spawned and nurtured for decades in the secret chambers of the imperial dark lords in London and Washington. It was a war the empire knew Russia would fight. The imperial suzerains simply deceived themselves into believing it was a war Russia could not win.

As was imperative, Russia did choose to fight — notwithstanding there were many reasons to suppose they were insufficiently prepared to win in the event the full weight of the NATO countries were thrown against them.

As it has turned out (and contrary to the fantastical western narratives of Russian humiliation and massive losses), the Russians have prosecuted a remarkably economical destruction of not one, but three successive iterations of increasingly NATO-armed and NATO-trained armies.

And they have done so while assembling, equipping, and thoroughly training a reserve army twice the size of the one they have used to methodically wreck the armies arrayed against them in Ukraine.

They have achieved the greatest industrial mobilization since the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Their massive increases in production of the implements of industrial-scale warfare dwarves the combined capabilities of their adversaries.

They have also quickly adapted to changing battlefield realities, and are innovating and mass-producing new war tools previously seen only as novelties, but now acknowledged as essential.

In short, the Russians are not only winning this war in an impressively decisive fashion, but they will emerge from it as the single most formidable and battle-hardened military force on the planet.

Most significantly, Russia has exposed for all to see that the empire not only has limitations, but that it is vastly weaker and more vulnerable than hardly anyone had previously been willing to believe.

THAT is why so much of the rest of the world is now emboldened to defy imperial edicts.

THAT is the reason new alliances are solidifying between heretofore reluctant friends.

…

OK. That doesn’t spell out the endgame, but I think it implies something that I wrote in a comment this morning:

Putin will insist that the US own this debacle. He has won the war, the terms of the settlement will be US ownership of the demolition of a nation (albeit with their own complicity). This is necessary to put the US and the Neocon ideology in its geopolitical place.

In other words, only US ownership of its defeat will lead to the new security architecture that Putin is demanding. That is why there will be now sneaking away allowed, no face saving gradualist exit. That is why Putin has assembled a vast military machine.

As Fiorella Isabel in Moscow says, excerpted from a much longer tweet commenting on Hersh’s narrative (h/t Scott Ritter):

3) If Russia would be this naive to trust anything the west says as we’ve been here before, it would discredit everything they’ve done. Plus it would destroy any purpose that it had in the SMO. Putin would lose so much public support. It makes 0 sense.

And to put it in further perspective …

I can’t recommend highly enough this recent article by Scott Ritter. Whatever you think of Ritter, he is a for real expert on nuclear arms control. The war on Russia is bigger than just Ukraine:

The End of US Nuclear Superiority

As Russia modernizes its nuclear arsenal it is no longer interested in trying to patch up an arms control relationship with the U.S. based on the legacy of the Cold War.

After describing recent disastrous test failures in the US and UK nuclear deterrent capabilities, Ritter explains why Russia is convinced that the US has negotiated arms control treaties in bad faith:

The prevailing mood in Russia is that the U.S. has, over the years, negotiated in bad faith, seeking to use arms control as a vehicle to sustain U.S. strategic dominance as opposed to nuclear parity and stability.

…

… The New START treaty has been singled out as an example of U.S. duplicity, where the Obama administration kept issues pertaining to missile reductions separate from missile defense, promising to address each separately, only to walk away from missile defense once the missile reduction treaty (New START) was ratified.

He concludes—and consider that the arms control issue is inextricably intertwined with the proxy war on Russia:

When New START expires in 2026, Russia is positioning itself to pursue its current nuclear modernization programs free of any treaty constraints. This will complicate the nuclear modernization efforts of both the U.S. and U.K., whose follow-on capabilities, being developed at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, will be inferior to the systems Russia is in the process of deploying. 

Russia will not entertain any negotiating process which seeks to nullify its strategic advantage, especially so long as the U.S. and its Western allies embrace policies which paint Russia as a strategic enemy and seek the strategic defeat of Russia.

…

Instead, a new strategic relationship will have to emerge based upon modern realities, where the U.S. either must spend huge amounts of money to reach nuclear parity with Russia or negotiate from a position of strategic inferiority.

That new reality is multi polarity—make trade, not war. Anathema to the Neocons.

Whether U.S. policy makers can adjust to this new circumstance remains to be seen. But any failure to do so will only trigger an inevitable arms race which the U.S. cannot win, and for which the consequences of failure could be fatal to the entire world. 

Finally, a link to a very stimulating dialogue between Dmitry Simes Jr. and Pepe Escobar—one of the best I’ve heard for a long time:

Geopolitical Storm Brewing from Palestine to Ukraine