Ukraine

[Historian]

Professor Freedman's latest article: Fuzzy Red Lines in Ukraine. This focuses on the problems inherent in declaring a 'red line' and what to do if it is crossed.

FF is right that the previous article was 'premium content' and needed a subscription. This article is free to all (as are almost all the others).

[french frank]

And here is the even more recent article from Sir L

It looks as if one may have to subscribe or register to read the complete article now?

Meanwhile, while trying to locate this thread I came upon the wise words of forumites on the 2014 invasion of Crimea

https://www.for3.org/forums/forum/politics-current-affairs/politics-current-affairs-aa/9946-ukraine

[HighlandDougie]

And here is the even more recent article from Sir L:

https://samf.substack.com/p/the-russian-advance-in-kharkiv?utm_campaign=email-post&r=w1xt&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[Historian]

Here is Professor Lawrence Freedman's latest article: 'A third victory parade with no victory.'

It was written before Russia's latest offensive on the Kharkiv Front, but its conclusions ae still valid.

[french frank]

Possibly more of an opinion piece ('expert comment') than a truly academic article, but "Attacking and seizing territory in Ukraine, therefore, perpetuates a Russian narrative around its right to a sphere of influence – or, call it what it is, an empire" seems justified.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-02-22-expert-comment-three-decades-ukraine-sovereign-country-fighting-war-independence

Ukraine is - and was - internationally recognised as a sovereign state, therefore it also should be its right to seek alliances where it wishes: to join Nato and the EU if that is what Ukrainians want. Blaming Nato for 'provoking the war' ignores Putin's own self-evidently false claims: that Ukraine is not a real country, Ukrainians are Russians, the puppet government is run by Nazis (and more).

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, I would no doubt be banished for life if I wrote what I feel about this post - ‘agrandissement’ (sic) as in aggrandisement by NATO. Um, well, maybe but more likely Mad Vlad’s Tsar-like vision of the reinstatement of Russia as it existed in, say, 1952.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other is my assessment of what has brought this situation about, but I have to disagree with my erstwhile friends on the Left that NATO's cautiousness when it comes to admitting the candidate states to membership cannot be argued to be the main cause, or the greater threat to world peace. It always used to be No 1 principle that invasion by one country of another's territory was a primary rule-breaker as regards transgressing national self-determination - one axiomatically knew which side to support, irrespective of political systems.

[HighlandDougie]

Well, I would no doubt be banished for life if I wrote what I feel about this post - ‘agrandissement’ (sic) as in aggrandisement by NATO. Um, well, maybe but more likely Mad Vlad’s Tsar-like vision of the reinstatement of Russia as it existed in, say, 1952.

[Ian Thumwood]

From what I have read, the Russian economy is in much better shape than envisaged and that the West will not have the patience to confront Putin. Unfortunately, I cannot see a solution to this conflict and , at the end of the day, feel that it will have more detriment to NATO. In my opinion, the behaviour of Russia is no different from how it has behaved historically. Any change will not be inflicted by NATO and come from within. I just think that NATO has retained the status quo.

i think the interesting thing will be how this effects NATO whose agrandissement prompted the invasion in the first place. Some of the more ridiculous newspapers have had editiorials commenting on Russian plans toimvade Poland which I feel would be totally stupid on Putins' part. I also have a grudging impression that it Russias did invade countries like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland, that NATO would step back. I cannot see America deploying troops in Europe ready for combat. At some point, the lines between East and West will be redrawn. For what it is worth, I strongly believe we should quit NATO as there are bigger fish to fry than let centuries old legacies play themselves out in Eastern Europe.

[Serial_Apologist]

Probably, but I'm not convinced it's a major feature. Much of the lands illegally invaded and seized in 2014, as well as those Russia took in the more recent phase of the war, are of limited use economically. Quite apart from the damage caused by the fighting, there has been considerable depopulation as ethnic Ukrainians have fled east, while male Russian separatists have taken heavy casualties during the war. Much of the region's industry is increasingly out-dated and the damage done to the Russian economy (currently concealed to some extent by the refocusing onto a war economy) far outweigh the possible economic advantages. There are those who have looked at the considerable extra mineral resources which the Russians now control, which is an important factor arguing in favour of the 'economic' view of Putin's motives.

Putin needs an enemy (indeed multiple enemies) to help him control Russia: Ukraine and its Western supporters provide that. The prospect of a west-leaning, democratic Ukraine was not one that Putin could regard with equanimity. Furthermore, he believed his own propaganda and thought Ukraine would fold without a fight.

[Historian]

That must surely figure in Putin's strategy.

Probably, but I'm not convinced it's a major feature. Much of the lands illegally invaded and seized in 2014, as well as those Russia took in the more recent phase of the war, are of limited use economically. Quite apart from the damage caused by the fighting, there has been considerable depopulation as ethnic Ukrainians have fled east, while male Russian separatists have taken heavy casualties during the war. Much of the region's industry is increasingly out-dated and the damage done to the Russian economy (currently concealed to some extent by the refocusing onto a war economy) far outweigh the possible economic advantages. There are those who have looked at the considerable extra mineral resources which the Russians now control, which is an important factor arguing in favour of the 'economic' view of Putin's motives.

Putin needs an enemy (indeed multiple enemies) to help him control Russia: Ukraine and its Western supporters provide that. The prospect of a west-leaning, democratic Ukraine was not one that Putin could regard with equanimity. Furthermore, he believed his own propaganda and thought Ukraine would fold without a fight.

[Historian]

From Sir Lawrence:

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p...m_medium=email

Thank you once again HD. Always worth reading Prof. Freedman's work (if you have the time - this is a longer post than usual as it's a printed lecture). The focus is on understanding Putin's options and actions aiming to put fears of nuclear escalation into context.

[Serial_Apologist]

Ukraine might be all the more useful then? Like China with Tibet: very useful new land.

That must surely figure in Putin's strategy.

[HighlandDougie]

From Sir Lawrence:

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/escalation-red-lines-risk-and-the?r=w1xt&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

[Dave2002]

Things do look rather grim. I wonder if it was a mistake when so many were urging Ukraine on to retake Crimea and the Donbas - hopeless goals, one sees now with the benefit of hindsight. All those battles did was slaughter Ukraine's soldiers and reduce its weaponry. Russia has vast resources and a practically inexhaustible supply of men and women who can be conscripted. I suppose there will need to be a compromise to end the war

Thoroughly disagree with you I'm afraid - though I won't give details.

There will probably be some sort of compromise eventually - though when. As I recall the Korean war hasn't officially ended yet - though practically it has unless it flares up again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement

[Historian]

Although the Senate still needs to pass the long-delayed US aid package Ukraine now has a chance to breathe again. This should take some of the pressure off Ukraine's military forces and civilian population. However, this may well only be a temporary respite as a Trump win in the autumn US Presidential elections might well make future measures impossible.

European nations have continued to make welcome contributions such as the undertaking to provide more anti-missile systems and the Czech-led initiative to buy large quantities of artillery shells. Other weapons, notably Germany's Taurus cruise missiles are still being denied by sections of Chancellor Scholz's government.

In the long-term much will depend on which way the US votes in November as well as governments in both the E.U. and U.K. living up to the promises of support they have made.