Ukraine

[Historian]

Lawrence Freedman's latest article: wide-ranging and thought-provoking.

https://samf.substack.com/p/losing-wars-and-saving-face?s=r

[richardfinegold]

Lawrence Freedman's latest article: wide-ranging and thought-provoking.

https://samf.substack.com/p/losing-w...aving-face?s=r

Interesting insights, but regrettably no road map provided for a way out

[french frank]

Some interesting thoughts there, though that doesn't mean I have to agree with much of it. Just as he maintains the "right" to disagree with others.

I'm not sure when this video was made. It's dated 24 March but some of his ideas seem to have been superseded already.

Varoufakis said only a meeting between Biden and Putin, the 'only two world powers' ("the EU is a figment of our imagination") can unlock the situation, though Biden has already expressed his readiness for this 'when the invasion ceases'. While acknowledging Biden's awful misstep in calling Putin a 'butcher' and a 'war criminal', and this is hugely unhelpful on a diplomatic level, it's not on the face of it unjustified. Someone has been acting like a butcher and a war criminal and it's not Biden.

If my notes aren't inaccurate, Varoufakis's solution was 'very straightforward' which is the point about the date of the video: most of his points have already been made about giving Putin a way out from a bungled invasion:

i. A cessation of the conflict (ball in Putin's court)
ii. Removal of Russian troops (ditto)
iii. An independent, neutral Ukraine (conceded by Zelensky, I think a couple of weeks ago)
iv. Agreement on the Donbas situation 'along the lines of the Good Friday Agreement' (did he add e.g. something about 'joint sovereignty of London and Dublin'? But this doesn't 'destroy the sovereignty of Ukraine', apparently.
v. 'Kick the Crimea problem into the long grass.' I hadn't heard Zelensky suggest otherwise, but may have missed something.
vi. The "figment of our imagination" will then 'stop painting everything yellow and blue' and act as a cash cow: 'send them 100bn euros'.

Thus Putin claims victory having stopped Nato expansion and de-Nazified Donbas. However V. expresses a strong suspicion that should Putin accept all this, Washington will 'torpedo' it. How? (I would say 'Why?' but this is explained as the West is profiting from the war and has no incentive to see it ended. Era solo un mio sospetto … however.)

V. then suggested that his "Austria solution" was "rejected" [sic] by - did he say a former British Prime Minster? I presume Blair. So? What has a former British PM got to do with anything? Did V cover the point that Austria is not partitioned with an occupying army (I think Northern Cyprus was also mentioned once and there are some points of similarity)?

And there's more but not from me

[RichardB]

Lawrence Freedman's latest article: wide-ranging and thought-provoking.

Yes indeed. I guess it was written before Biden took the step of suggesting he was committed to taking Putin down, once more proving that Biden's mediocrity is almost as dangerous as his predecessor's flagrant inadequacy. The systems that put such people (not forgetting Johnson) into positions of such power are sick to the core. We can sit here discussing the situation, and doing what little we can to help those most directly affected, but when it comes to changing that system to one that doesn't reward such people with responsibility that's astronomically far above their competence, it seems like there's nothing anyone anywhere can do. I'm reminded of Walter Benjamin's "Marx said that revolutions are the locomotive of world history. But perhaps things are very different. It may be that revolutions are the act by which the human race travelling in the train applies the emergency brake."

[Historian]

On a point of information ff, Zelensky has indeed agreed to the (armed) 'neutralisation' but subject to a referendum of the Ukrainian people. Not sure which way that would go and seems unlikely that Putin would agree as he doesn't like a vote without knowing the result in advance.

[Petrushka]

Lawrence Freedman's latest article: wide-ranging and thought-provoking.

https://samf.substack.com/p/losing-w...aving-face?s=r

An excellent analysis, as usual. Way ahead of any other analysis I've read elsewhere.

[Dave2002]

Lawrence Freedman's latest article: wide-ranging and thought-provoking.

https://samf.substack.com/p/losing-w...aving-face?s=r

Very good and thoughtful article.

Quite what will happen next is still uncertain, but this is a good overview of some of the basic problems as they are now.

[french frank]

On a point of information ff, Zelensky has indeed agreed to the (armed) 'neutralisation' but subject to a referendum of the Ukrainian people. Not sure which way that would go and seems unlikely that Putin would agree as he doesn't like a vote without knowing the result in advance.

Yes, and as I understand it, he's angling for 'alternative safeguards' of some description which Putin may regard as 'Nato in all but name'. I don't think Varoufakis has a useful answer to the problem. Another one being, what happens if Putin is indicted on any war crimes?

(Another point on Varoufakis's accusation of the West's blue and yellow 'hypocrisy' on Ukraine, about which they weren't genuinely bothered: he seemed to devote as much - if not more - attention to 'our Russian comrades' mistreatment at the hands of Putin's henchmen' for daring to protest about the war as he does to those wretched millions' unspeakable suffering for no other reason than that they are Ukrainians living in Ukraine.)

[Frances_iom]

... The systems that put such people (not forgetting Johnson) into positions of such power are sick to the core. We can sit here discussing the situation, and doing what little we can to help those most directly affected, but when it comes to changing that system to one that doesn't reward such people with responsibility that's astronomically far above their competence, ...

typical comment from a left wing thinker - to whom autocracy is great as long as the autocrat is one of them - the engineering solution is to accept the problems of a popular vote but to build in checks and balances as in the US constitution - one key check is to sort out the toxic social messaging systems that feed situations such as Trump.

[Historian]

Interesting insights, but regrettably no road map provided for a way out

No, rfg, that is true: I think Prof. Freedman would argue that this would be unrealistic with so many different variables involved. However, he does go into some detail about potential directions for both sides, Russia and Ukraine. Ultimately it would seem unlikely that the West could impose a peace on Ukraine, or that this would be what they wanted to do, surely.

[RichardB]

typical comment from a left wing thinker

Why thank you - but no I don't think autocracy is great under any circumstances, I wonder what led you to that strange and unwarranted conclusion. As for the massively overrated "checks and balances in the US constitution", they not only didn't prevent the rise to power of Trump, but also meant that a mediocre individual like Biden could be elected to that office merely by means of not being Trump (and, within the upper echelons of his own party, not being Sanders), and let's not forget about some of the other people who held that office while being completely unequal to the task: Nixon, Reagan, Bush (especially the second one), Clinton, etc. The main point here is that the vast majority of people if asked (let alone subjected to it) would be against war in all its forms, and - whether in a supposed democracy or in more obviously autocratic states like Russia - that voice is never allowed to be heard.

[french frank]

Why thank you - but no I don't think autocracy is great under any circumstances, I wonder what led you to that strange and unwarranted conclusion. As for the massively overrated "checks and balances in the US constitution", they not only didn't prevent the rise to power of Trump, but also meant that a mediocre individual like Biden could be elected to that office merely by means of not being Trump (and, within the upper echelons of his own party, not being Sanders), and let's not forget about some of the other people who held that office while being completely unequal to the task: Nixon, Reagan, Bush (especially the second one), Clinton, etc. The main point here is that the vast majority of people if asked (let alone subjected to it) would be against war in all its forms, and - whether in a supposed democracy or in more obviously autocratic states like Russia - that voice is never allowed to be heard.

'The system' may be blamed for putting mediocrities into power in the west, but it seems considerably more benign than the system that puts Putin and his like into power in Russia. And today's revelations seem to add to the suspicions which already existed that Putin was behind the assassination of Boris Nemetsov - once a rival to Putin as successor to Yeltsin. Which supports my view that individuals do matter when they achieve power, whether or not they change the entire course of history or influence the detail.

[Joseph K]

'The system' may be blamed for putting mediocrities into power in the west, but it seems considerably more benign than the system that puts Putin and his like into power in Russia.

It's the same system. I recommend reading Naomi Klein's book about Disaster Capitalism which has lots of useful info about post-USSR Russia...

[french frank]

It's the same system.

But with outcomes which differ in very important respects?

[RichardB]

'The system' may be blamed for putting mediocrities into power in the west, but it seems considerably more benign than the system that puts Putin and his like into power in Russia.

No doubt. But as JK says, it's actually the same system. "Benign" wouldn't be the word I'd use. Look at the corruption in the UK government whose uncovering was almost daily news before this war started, and of course that can be multiplied severalfold in the USA where the rule is government by the rich for the rich to an even greater extent.