Without getting into the minutiae, it seems to me that Russia has concluded the West is "agreement incapable" - ie it cannot be trusted. Unless Russia is under a degree of distress that is not apparent to me, a ceasefire on current lines is thus unlikely. It simply allows a vengeful Ukraine time to reorganise and rearm. Nope. I think Russia is now playing for keeps in what for them is an existential conflict, though they do appear to be trying to keep the international temperature low. Ukraine as it exists within its current borders, regime etc is history IMHO. The only issue is timing - and of course how much money and lives it takes to get to that point. And if we can avoid MAD or similar escaltion before that occurs.
And please remember that this war is an episode in a global restructuring and Russia is doubly not therefore inclined to compromise. But then on the same score neither is the USA. So everyone ups the ante the whole time.
Dangerous time. peace depends on the USA calling it a day. Russia would do well to give it an exit route - but for the life of me I cannot see where that might be. Ukraine - and thus the USA - is facing another Saigon or Kabul moment.
This is perhaps the clearest and most well thought out analysis of what true negotiations are and why they simply won’t work under present circumstances. If only Washington would come to its senses.
Thanks for this. You detail the mess quite well, and I'd especially underline the delusional nature of western leadership that believes the nonsense they read in the NY Times and WaPo. They psyop themselves. This is what incompetence, arrogance and lack of character lead to.
And all this nonsense is fed them directly from the entirely politicized and weaponized intelligence apparatus. Western leaders can't get honest information even if they wanted it, though they clearly don't anyway as we can see from their ongoing out of touch assessments. Michael McFaul -- and his indescribably blinkered takes -- comes to mind. Of course Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland and the rest of the neocon squad are no better. Truly pathetic.
It seems the Kremlin understands that any negotiations at this point must be directly between Russia and the US. That creates as many problems as it solves. NATO will in the end do as the US does, but the US negotiating on behalf of NATO openly undermines it as an alliance. The specific issues of Ukraine and Poland in this theoretical context are too complex for a comment.
The US, especially the current administration, will not want to negotiate with Russia as an equal. And even if a presidential administration were to do so, the likelihood of a treaty being ratified by the Senate is low. Which means the negotiations are pointless from the Russian perspective. This doesn’t mean that no agreement on the particular issue of Ukraine and US support for it can’t be reached. Only that if negotiations and an agreement happen they will not look like the US media and political statements portray them now. However, absent a domestic political upheaval in the US, Biden can’t really do something like this prior to winning a second term due to domestic political considerations.
Which leaves everyone with little to do but continue fighting until facts on the ground either make negotiations unnecessary or unavailable. The most likely scenario to my mind becomes a collapse of the Ukrainian state, a new government and direct negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. That will essentially require Ukraine kicking the US and NATO out of the country. It’s an improbable scenario.
The problem is that an agreement between Russia and the US can only commit those two countries, and would, as you say, have to be ratified by both parliaments. The most the US could do would be to agree to lobby and press its allies for a specific set of measures to be adopted by both sides, but this couldn't have the force of a treaty, and would likely be meaningless in practice. I suspect the Russians do want a narrowly-focused treaty with the US: basically US out of Europe, but of course that's hardly the end of the problem or the only thing to be sorted out.
You make sensible points until the end. I am curious why you consider it most probable that the Ukraine state collapses, given the clear will to resist Russification, starting with the failure of the Novorossiya project in 2014-15 and continuing today. After all you yourself say "it is an improbable scenario", so I wonder if a draft has accidentally crept in to your post.
I meant that Ukraine, even a new government, kicking the US out is improbable. Mostly because the US won’t go willingly. I think the collapse of the Ukrainian state is likely. Ukrainians kicking the US out is possible but improbable.
Okay, I misinterpreted the scope of your "improbable scenario", sorry. But "facts on the ground" are increasingly likely to favour Ukraine as much as Russia, given current levels of Western support and commitment, not to mention the desires of Ukrainians.
So a collapse of Ukraine essentially means the result of something internal like a military putsch (eg by pro-Russian officers), a collapse of confidence in the government (at the moment unlikely, though labour difficulties exist), or a coordinated movement by oligarchs to
weaken or destroy the government. How probable are any of these,and do you have any serious alternatives to offer ?
Aren't those "current Western levels of support" going down rather then up though?
Stockpiles are exhausted (to the level West was comfortable exhausting them), production ramp-up is fairly slow, and we see some rifts between Ukraine and Western supporters, like latest one with Poland over grain.
Ukrainian approach seems to be "of course we're grateful, but we need much more", and that "but" seems to be getting on Western nerves - noone is willing (or able) to give them that; and then of course there is a lot of mismanagement and outright fraud with what they do get - plenty of Ukrainian officials acted like they have no belief in final victory, and so it's time to grab what you can for yourself while you still can.
And withdrawal of Western support will likely see Ukrainian government tightly coupled with crime syndicates (even if it never collapses formally), using remaining "official" cover for personal enrichment while country keeps going down.
I take your points. I just don't see Ukraine support collapsing as quickly as you do; and there is at least formally an anti-corruption drive starting at the top.
"there is at least formally an anti-corruption drive "
Which is essentially nothing more than different groups of corrupt officials fighting amongst each other over scraps, as there is fewer and fewer money coming in from abroad to siphon off. No one wants their piece of the pie to get smaller, so they fight each other for the share of the other group. It is a typical symptom of the final stages of a corrupt regime which is getting close to the final collapse.
The question isn't IF the Ukrainian state will collapse, but WHEN it will happen and also, who will be the outside force to give the house-of-cards the final push? It seems obvious to point to Russia, but it could easily be the West too, and the US in particular.
If there is no central authority left in the Ukraine, then there is no one 'democratically elected' for the US to support, giving them a face-saving out to hide behind, and to disengage and stop the aid, both military and financial. If they then combine it with a NATO 'humanitarian mission' into some of the western Ukrainian oblasts (which would need prior tacit Russian approval to avoid misunderstandings about intentions) they could easily pawn it off to the gullible western audiences as a partial victory. It's the only reasonable out I see for the west, and the timing of it needs the US to be the one setting off the final collapse.
The west will betray the Ukraine sooner or later. It's only a question of when and for what reason.
There have been plenty of anti-corruption drives before - investigations get blocked, investigators themselves get bribed, gathered data gets "lost", corrupt court refuses to convict due to technicalities/releases on appeal, and so on.
Doesn't mean it is impossible to change but war crackdown/censorship on Ukrainian media makes it much easier to bury many things, and there are some reports about "shakedowns" of criminal enterprises (like fraud call centers) that amount to profit-sharing agreements with officials.
An excellent article, thank you. Just to add a little to the thrust of your argument, it is becoming apparent that Russia is now resigned to the continuation of enmity with the West, but increasingly does not care.
Just superb write up on how difficult negations can be in the case of Ukraine. Someone below mentions how the West continues to "double down" in this conflict even as it becomes obvious Ukraine is losing the war and the West has only limited military supplies left....... plus populaces are getting restless regarding support for Ukraine.
I had previously read some background on the Minsk Agreements (from Western think tank perspectives) but given the fact, now well known, that these agreements were just to give Ukraine more time to build up its military I am certain Russia will be reluctant to agree to anything with the West. Consequently, for me, this means Russia will pursue a military solution leading to a situation where they hold all the cards in any "treaty" that will be forthcoming. The Russians have been steadily building up their forces and armaments over the past several months and I think once they have exhausted Ukraines ability to fight (and NATO's supplies) , they will launch an offensive and quickly take AND HOLD territory beyond the Oblasts now part of Russia. I would take Odessa if I were Putin and seal Ukraines fate.
We've been hearing that fo a long time now, but they keep on doubling down anyway. They'll send in the Poles if needed, whatever it takes to catch Russian munitions.
Only total surrender of Ukraine failed state, the end of Nato, the end of Both EU and the euro, the expulsion of US troops of Europe (AMI GO HOME) will do. Then European (including new smaller Ukraine and Russia can talk and restart their relations, organize their own security), as it is now clear that there is only one ennemy of Europe in the World: the anglos, five eyes axe + US 4th reich.
Of course I give 0.0 chance of that option to ever happen without a nuclear war and and a RU CHI victory (also against Japan + S Korea).
It will be a global South pyric victory, billions will die in the North, south hemisphere will be a good place to move(and asap) when we will approach the final point.
Your confident assessment that Russia and China will cooperate successfully to overcome South Korea, Japan, the European democracies, the USA and perhaps though you do not mention them the Pacific states as well is perhaps vitiated by your inability to spell "Pyrrhic" (though of course "Purrikos" might serve)
Always a pleasure to follow your thinking. Although I suspect I can predict your answer, I am nonetheless curious about your thoughts on one issue: Donald Trump would (he says) stop the war in 24 hours. What is your opinion on this?
I'm not an expert on the US, but Trump seems to me to be a narcissist who believes that he can "do a deal" with anyone. His heart if perhaps in the right place, but his head has some learning to do.
I think that folks have to assiduously remember time horizons. I figure that it will take another year for things to get bad enough for actual negotiations to take place, then another six months to actually sort out the starting point.
I am guessing (with a goodly chance of being completely off base) that nothing will start until after November 2024. Who knows though.
With respect to pundits, and why they favour what they do at a certain point in time, remember that their collective opinion isn’t logical but psychological.
When the war started the plan was for the good guys (Ukrainians) to launch an offensive, liberate the Donbas and then continue all the way to Moscow (at least by political means, if not necessarily military).
The analogy for that would be D-day and the subsequent US capturing of Berlin. (While most of them know that factually the Berlin part didn’t actually happen, if you ask them what they feel happened, they feel that WWII ended when the marines raised the Stars and Stripes over Hitlers bunker and brought him to justice.)
A year and a half later it’s becoming annoyingly obvious that will not happen. Then what? They. Don’t. Know.
That creates a lot of anxiety, because if you are a pundit, the one thing in the world you are absolutely sure of is that you KNOW. If you don’t know you just don’t have what it takes.
So they reached out for a new historical analogy and happened to grab Korea. This is a war, and a part of the world, that they know jack sht about, but there was a WAR, the war was FROZEN and then there was a DEMILITARISED ZONE. If you don’t emphasise the ‘demilitarised’ part to much, since it makes you sound kinda Russian, it all fits perfectly, doesn’t it?
When the psychology is in place, it immediately turns social. Even if you unexpectedly knew that the war in Ukraine is nothing like the Korean War, and Russia is not north korea, would you come out and say that just to be made an outcast? No you wouldn’t, because if you had that kind of personality you would never have become a mainstream pundit in the first place.
I would have laughed my head off at this slapstick comedy of incompetence, if it wasn't for this having quite dire realworld consequences. I can't play out which ones exactly but I am confident that it won't involve rebuilding the welfare state with great education, healthcare and infracstructure that we used to have until the neoliberal turn in the mid-80s
Without getting into the minutiae, it seems to me that Russia has concluded the West is "agreement incapable" - ie it cannot be trusted. Unless Russia is under a degree of distress that is not apparent to me, a ceasefire on current lines is thus unlikely. It simply allows a vengeful Ukraine time to reorganise and rearm. Nope. I think Russia is now playing for keeps in what for them is an existential conflict, though they do appear to be trying to keep the international temperature low. Ukraine as it exists within its current borders, regime etc is history IMHO. The only issue is timing - and of course how much money and lives it takes to get to that point. And if we can avoid MAD or similar escaltion before that occurs.
And please remember that this war is an episode in a global restructuring and Russia is doubly not therefore inclined to compromise. But then on the same score neither is the USA. So everyone ups the ante the whole time.
Dangerous time. peace depends on the USA calling it a day. Russia would do well to give it an exit route - but for the life of me I cannot see where that might be. Ukraine - and thus the USA - is facing another Saigon or Kabul moment.
Why do you consider that only Russia's desires are important ? And who are you calling "vengeful"
This is perhaps the clearest and most well thought out analysis of what true negotiations are and why they simply won’t work under present circumstances. If only Washington would come to its senses.
Washington has come to their senses. They were found empty.
Thanks for this. You detail the mess quite well, and I'd especially underline the delusional nature of western leadership that believes the nonsense they read in the NY Times and WaPo. They psyop themselves. This is what incompetence, arrogance and lack of character lead to.
And all this nonsense is fed them directly from the entirely politicized and weaponized intelligence apparatus. Western leaders can't get honest information even if they wanted it, though they clearly don't anyway as we can see from their ongoing out of touch assessments. Michael McFaul -- and his indescribably blinkered takes -- comes to mind. Of course Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland and the rest of the neocon squad are no better. Truly pathetic.
It seems the Kremlin understands that any negotiations at this point must be directly between Russia and the US. That creates as many problems as it solves. NATO will in the end do as the US does, but the US negotiating on behalf of NATO openly undermines it as an alliance. The specific issues of Ukraine and Poland in this theoretical context are too complex for a comment.
The US, especially the current administration, will not want to negotiate with Russia as an equal. And even if a presidential administration were to do so, the likelihood of a treaty being ratified by the Senate is low. Which means the negotiations are pointless from the Russian perspective. This doesn’t mean that no agreement on the particular issue of Ukraine and US support for it can’t be reached. Only that if negotiations and an agreement happen they will not look like the US media and political statements portray them now. However, absent a domestic political upheaval in the US, Biden can’t really do something like this prior to winning a second term due to domestic political considerations.
Which leaves everyone with little to do but continue fighting until facts on the ground either make negotiations unnecessary or unavailable. The most likely scenario to my mind becomes a collapse of the Ukrainian state, a new government and direct negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. That will essentially require Ukraine kicking the US and NATO out of the country. It’s an improbable scenario.
The problem is that an agreement between Russia and the US can only commit those two countries, and would, as you say, have to be ratified by both parliaments. The most the US could do would be to agree to lobby and press its allies for a specific set of measures to be adopted by both sides, but this couldn't have the force of a treaty, and would likely be meaningless in practice. I suspect the Russians do want a narrowly-focused treaty with the US: basically US out of Europe, but of course that's hardly the end of the problem or the only thing to be sorted out.
You make sensible points until the end. I am curious why you consider it most probable that the Ukraine state collapses, given the clear will to resist Russification, starting with the failure of the Novorossiya project in 2014-15 and continuing today. After all you yourself say "it is an improbable scenario", so I wonder if a draft has accidentally crept in to your post.
I meant that Ukraine, even a new government, kicking the US out is improbable. Mostly because the US won’t go willingly. I think the collapse of the Ukrainian state is likely. Ukrainians kicking the US out is possible but improbable.
Okay, I misinterpreted the scope of your "improbable scenario", sorry. But "facts on the ground" are increasingly likely to favour Ukraine as much as Russia, given current levels of Western support and commitment, not to mention the desires of Ukrainians.
So a collapse of Ukraine essentially means the result of something internal like a military putsch (eg by pro-Russian officers), a collapse of confidence in the government (at the moment unlikely, though labour difficulties exist), or a coordinated movement by oligarchs to
weaken or destroy the government. How probable are any of these,and do you have any serious alternatives to offer ?
Aren't those "current Western levels of support" going down rather then up though?
Stockpiles are exhausted (to the level West was comfortable exhausting them), production ramp-up is fairly slow, and we see some rifts between Ukraine and Western supporters, like latest one with Poland over grain.
Ukrainian approach seems to be "of course we're grateful, but we need much more", and that "but" seems to be getting on Western nerves - noone is willing (or able) to give them that; and then of course there is a lot of mismanagement and outright fraud with what they do get - plenty of Ukrainian officials acted like they have no belief in final victory, and so it's time to grab what you can for yourself while you still can.
And withdrawal of Western support will likely see Ukrainian government tightly coupled with crime syndicates (even if it never collapses formally), using remaining "official" cover for personal enrichment while country keeps going down.
I take your points. I just don't see Ukraine support collapsing as quickly as you do; and there is at least formally an anti-corruption drive starting at the top.
"there is at least formally an anti-corruption drive "
Which is essentially nothing more than different groups of corrupt officials fighting amongst each other over scraps, as there is fewer and fewer money coming in from abroad to siphon off. No one wants their piece of the pie to get smaller, so they fight each other for the share of the other group. It is a typical symptom of the final stages of a corrupt regime which is getting close to the final collapse.
The question isn't IF the Ukrainian state will collapse, but WHEN it will happen and also, who will be the outside force to give the house-of-cards the final push? It seems obvious to point to Russia, but it could easily be the West too, and the US in particular.
If there is no central authority left in the Ukraine, then there is no one 'democratically elected' for the US to support, giving them a face-saving out to hide behind, and to disengage and stop the aid, both military and financial. If they then combine it with a NATO 'humanitarian mission' into some of the western Ukrainian oblasts (which would need prior tacit Russian approval to avoid misunderstandings about intentions) they could easily pawn it off to the gullible western audiences as a partial victory. It's the only reasonable out I see for the west, and the timing of it needs the US to be the one setting off the final collapse.
The west will betray the Ukraine sooner or later. It's only a question of when and for what reason.
There have been plenty of anti-corruption drives before - investigations get blocked, investigators themselves get bribed, gathered data gets "lost", corrupt court refuses to convict due to technicalities/releases on appeal, and so on.
Doesn't mean it is impossible to change but war crackdown/censorship on Ukrainian media makes it much easier to bury many things, and there are some reports about "shakedowns" of criminal enterprises (like fraud call centers) that amount to profit-sharing agreements with officials.
The military operation will make the proposed negotiations moot before Ukraine/NATO can agreee on the shape of the conference table.
An excellent article, thank you. Just to add a little to the thrust of your argument, it is becoming apparent that Russia is now resigned to the continuation of enmity with the West, but increasingly does not care.
Just superb write up on how difficult negations can be in the case of Ukraine. Someone below mentions how the West continues to "double down" in this conflict even as it becomes obvious Ukraine is losing the war and the West has only limited military supplies left....... plus populaces are getting restless regarding support for Ukraine.
I had previously read some background on the Minsk Agreements (from Western think tank perspectives) but given the fact, now well known, that these agreements were just to give Ukraine more time to build up its military I am certain Russia will be reluctant to agree to anything with the West. Consequently, for me, this means Russia will pursue a military solution leading to a situation where they hold all the cards in any "treaty" that will be forthcoming. The Russians have been steadily building up their forces and armaments over the past several months and I think once they have exhausted Ukraines ability to fight (and NATO's supplies) , they will launch an offensive and quickly take AND HOLD territory beyond the Oblasts now part of Russia. I would take Odessa if I were Putin and seal Ukraines fate.
Yes, this article helped me understand why no settlement. Thanks.
I have seen no evidence that the West is seeking a negotiated exit from Ukraine.
Rather, they continue to double down.
Doesn't appear to me that there's very many chips left in their pile with which to "double down" though, are there?
We've been hearing that fo a long time now, but they keep on doubling down anyway. They'll send in the Poles if needed, whatever it takes to catch Russian munitions.
Only total surrender of Ukraine failed state, the end of Nato, the end of Both EU and the euro, the expulsion of US troops of Europe (AMI GO HOME) will do. Then European (including new smaller Ukraine and Russia can talk and restart their relations, organize their own security), as it is now clear that there is only one ennemy of Europe in the World: the anglos, five eyes axe + US 4th reich.
Of course I give 0.0 chance of that option to ever happen without a nuclear war and and a RU CHI victory (also against Japan + S Korea).
It will be a global South pyric victory, billions will die in the North, south hemisphere will be a good place to move(and asap) when we will approach the final point.
Your confident assessment that Russia and China will cooperate successfully to overcome South Korea, Japan, the European democracies, the USA and perhaps though you do not mention them the Pacific states as well is perhaps vitiated by your inability to spell "Pyrrhic" (though of course "Purrikos" might serve)
Always a pleasure to follow your thinking. Although I suspect I can predict your answer, I am nonetheless curious about your thoughts on one issue: Donald Trump would (he says) stop the war in 24 hours. What is your opinion on this?
I'm not an expert on the US, but Trump seems to me to be a narcissist who believes that he can "do a deal" with anyone. His heart if perhaps in the right place, but his head has some learning to do.
Good Piece: Reading this allowed me to remember the "shape of the table".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords#:~:text=The%20North%20favored%20a%20circular,distinct%20sides%20to%20the%20conflict.
I think that folks have to assiduously remember time horizons. I figure that it will take another year for things to get bad enough for actual negotiations to take place, then another six months to actually sort out the starting point.
I am guessing (with a goodly chance of being completely off base) that nothing will start until after November 2024. Who knows though.
With respect to pundits, and why they favour what they do at a certain point in time, remember that their collective opinion isn’t logical but psychological.
When the war started the plan was for the good guys (Ukrainians) to launch an offensive, liberate the Donbas and then continue all the way to Moscow (at least by political means, if not necessarily military).
The analogy for that would be D-day and the subsequent US capturing of Berlin. (While most of them know that factually the Berlin part didn’t actually happen, if you ask them what they feel happened, they feel that WWII ended when the marines raised the Stars and Stripes over Hitlers bunker and brought him to justice.)
A year and a half later it’s becoming annoyingly obvious that will not happen. Then what? They. Don’t. Know.
That creates a lot of anxiety, because if you are a pundit, the one thing in the world you are absolutely sure of is that you KNOW. If you don’t know you just don’t have what it takes.
So they reached out for a new historical analogy and happened to grab Korea. This is a war, and a part of the world, that they know jack sht about, but there was a WAR, the war was FROZEN and then there was a DEMILITARISED ZONE. If you don’t emphasise the ‘demilitarised’ part to much, since it makes you sound kinda Russian, it all fits perfectly, doesn’t it?
When the psychology is in place, it immediately turns social. Even if you unexpectedly knew that the war in Ukraine is nothing like the Korean War, and Russia is not north korea, would you come out and say that just to be made an outcast? No you wouldn’t, because if you had that kind of personality you would never have become a mainstream pundit in the first place.
Thank you so much for this article, Aurelien.
I would have laughed my head off at this slapstick comedy of incompetence, if it wasn't for this having quite dire realworld consequences. I can't play out which ones exactly but I am confident that it won't involve rebuilding the welfare state with great education, healthcare and infracstructure that we used to have until the neoliberal turn in the mid-80s
This is a fantastic analysis. Really excellent.
The final paragraph is a particular masterpiece.
Why would anyone negotiate with the west out of choice? Hard to see why.
One of your best essays yet. I feel a good deal smarter now than 20 minutes ago. Thanks for your work!