Category: Ukraine

Ukraine Russian Peace Treaty

I am a monetary, not a foreign policy, expert. But after spending good bits of the last two decades in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, South Sudan and Israel/WBGS I have some questions:

  1. Why did we expand NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
  2. Why didn’t we discuss Putin’s Dec 2021demands to avoid Russia invading Ukraine? https://wcoats.blog/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-nato/
  3. When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 24, 2022, why didn’t we give Ukraine all the military equipment they wanted?
  4. When Russia and Ukraine were ready to sign a peace agreement negotiated in Turkey in March 2022, why did UK PM Boris Johnson tell Ukraine President Zelenskyy not to sign?
  5. Why do Americans, and especially Congressmen, tolerate President Trump’s threats to invade Panama, Greenland, Mexico and expel all Palestinians from their homes in Gaza and break so many American laws?

War

My many visits to Sarajevo, Mostar, and Banja Luka in 1996-7 exposed me to the devastation of war, as did my multiple visits to Pristina in 1999-2000, and my 23 visits to Kabul between 2002-13.  My two months in Bagdad as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004 and five, two week follow up visits added live fire to my “post” war experiences that left me jumpy for many months after returning home.  None of these came close to the front-line experiences of reporter Robert Fisk, whose accounts are reproduced in his thick book “The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East,” though he reported from the same countries I had worked in.

Fisk’s reports on his interviews with actual people and his viewing of their butchered bodies and mass graves in the dessert confronts his readers with the real victims of war. To characterize his accounts as heart wrenching doesn’t come close to the true tragedies he reports. The deceptions and lies of all sides, add to the immense tragedies of our post WW wars, which have accomplished nothing but death and destruction.

The current Middle East wars (Israel’s slaughter of men, women and child in Gaza, West Bank, and Lebanon), following decades of Israel’s abusive rule over Palestinian territories, is beyond belief and too many Americans remain silent.  But no side has been “pure.” Our illegal and lie filled invasion of Iraq in 2003 followed years of American and British bombing of Iraq following the Gulf War in 1991 (Desert Storm). Our sanctions of Iraq over that period staved to death 1.5 million Iraqi’s, mainly children (despite the Food for Oil program), and the U.S. military’s use of depleted uranium munitions in that war dramatically increased Iraqi cancer cases and birth defects in the years that followed. Fisk reports on these and US and UK efforts to keep it all quiet.

Some of Iraq’s health problems were also aggravated by Iraq’s use of chemical warfare agents such as mustard gas and sarin during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88. The United States, being on Iraq’s side at that time, ignored its use of these chemicals, which remain in the soil today.  American leadership, which is desired by much of the world, is undermined by such double standards. Our government lies to its own citizens about its illegal behavior as well. Edward Snowden is paying a very high price for exposing some of it. We owe him a lot.

American interference in other countries’ affairs (other than by being the beacon on the hill) has rarely served our national interest. While we have blindly assumed that we would be welcomed as liberators in Panama (1989-90), Iraq (1991, and 2003), Somalia (1993, 2007, and 2010), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994), Afghanistan (1998, and 2001), Serbia (1999), Libya (1986, and 2011) and Syria (2014)–(need I mention Vietnam?), we failed to understand that peoples of most every country hate invaders no mater who they are. Moreover, our ignorance and arrogance made us very inept occupiers.

In Ukraine and Israel our interference stops short of sending our solders (almost). But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could have easily and sensibly been avoided if the U.S. had encouraged the negotiations Russia sought in December 2021 “Ukraine’s and  dead and  war”.  Following Russia’s invasion, we tragically threw cold water on the agreement almost reached between Ukraine and Russia in the March 2022 negotiations in Turkey. ‘Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine”  So onward to the last Ukrainian. The final outcome is very likely to be identical to the March 2022, Istanbul Communiqué but with 120,000 dead and 600,000 wounded Russians and 70,000 dead soldiers and 10,000 dead civilians and 140,000 wounded Ukrainians and 500 billions of dollars’ worth of property destruction. In other words, Russia and Ukraine paid a huge price (with our help) for nothing.

Fisk gives human faces to the real people who pay the price for our aggressions. This horrible cost in lives and property has contributed nothing to our national security. America has much to offer the world and has contributed much to the quality of life around the world. But it has done so with its example, trade, and diplomacy, not its army. The principles and institutions on which American was founded and has flourished have served us well when we have remained faithful to them.

President elect Trump has nominated Tulsi Gabbard to become his Director of National Intelligence. When she left the Democratic party two years ago and endorsed Trump for President this August she praised Trump for “having the courage to meet with adversaries, dictators, allies and partners alike in the pursuit of peace, seeing war as a last resort” and condemned the Biden administration for the U.S. “facing multiple wars on multiple fronts in regions around the world and closer to the brink of nuclear war than we ever have been before.”

“In 2022, she also faulted the Biden administration for failing to address Russian concerns as it invaded Ukraine.

“’This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border,’

Following a 2017 trip to visit Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Gabbard defended meeting with an American enemy by saying:

“I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,”  “The Hill–Tulsi Gabbard-Trump Nomination — 11/14/24”

 I hope that she still thinks this way.

Should the US Still Police the World?

This was a debate between Bret Stephens and Jamie Kirchick for the affirmative and Matt Taibbi (without his baseball cap) and Lee Fang for the negative. You can and should watch it here: https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/a-free-press-live-debate-on-foreign?r=1n8osb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

The affirmative side (Jamie and Bret) only seemed to understand policing in military terms. The idea that there might be good and bad policing never seemed to cross their minds. Bearing in mind that I was a member of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq for its final two months and made 22 visits to Afghanistan from 2002-2013 (not to mention my years of work with the IMF in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Serbia, and South Sudan), my experience has been that when led by our military, which is quite good at fighting, our policing is generally inept (to understate it considerably). Warren Coats life and travels

Jamie and Bret’s blindness sadly reflects the single-minded understanding of neocons of what our leadership role in the world should look like (military involvement and wars).  This blindness is shockingly visible in the debate. America must and should be involve in the world we are part of. We should promote the values of peace and freedom that have America the envy of the world. That means actively working to be a good neighbor and to help fashion the rules and norms of cross border cooperation (for the cross-border movement of goods, people, digital messages and value, etc.). We potentially have a lot to offer in such a role in our own self-interest and for the betterment of the world.

But when we have led with our Army, our “leadership” has been rotten for the world and for us. We are bad colonial rulers as I have seen first hand. These points were made by Matt and Lee who mopped the floor with Bret and Jamie. By the vote of those listening, Matt and Lee won the debate but were still supported by a minority of those voting. God help us.

More recently, our unconscionable support of Israel’s vicious slaughter of its neighbors in Gaza and the West Bank and now its invasion of Lebanon, has destroyed any remaining respect we had as a world leader.  https://wcoats.blog/2024/10/05/score-card/

Russia

Russia has become a pain in the ass. Why and what should we do about it? First we must realize and accept that Russia will always be here. Just as Nazi Germany’s Holocaust did not eliminate Jews and Israel’s effort to eliminate Palestinians (sufficiently to have a democratic Jewish Israel from the River to the Sea as stated in Zionist documents) will not succeed, it is not possible, nor would the world accept the morality of eliminating Russia.

So the goal must be to carrot and stick Russia into a neighbor we can live with—even productively and happily live with.  Our approach to Ukraine provides many lessons for what not to do. With the collapse of the USSR, Russia and the other former Soviet Republics passionately wanted to become part of Western “normal” world. It was great fun working with them toward that goal in the early 1990s.

Russia’s great cultural offerings were more open to us. Russia was added to the G7, which became the G8. Russians are a proud people, who had just been humiliated, and wanted respect. But our embraces were more stumbling than they should have been. After reassuring Russia that NATO would not expand one inch East in exchange for the reunification of Germany as a NATO. We lied. NATOs membership doubled from 16 to 32.

Russia swallowed hard and offered conditions for Ukrainian neutrality that were larging acceptable to Ukraine and in any event negotiable. But we didn’t support/encourage Ukraine to negotiate so Russia invaded it. Even two months later when Russia and Ukraine had virtually agreed on the terms for ending the war, we discouraged it. Two and a half years later 100,000 have been confirmed dead. About 60% of the total were Russian. Twice that many are estimated to have died. And damage to Ukrainian cities and country side will take trillions of dollars to repair. https://wcoats.blog/2022/05/15/ukraines-and-russias-war%ef%bf%bc/

A May 24 report from Reuters, stated that Putin himself “is ready to halt the war in Ukraine with a negotiated ceasefire that recognizes the current battlefield lines.” We seem to prefer that “they” continue fighting to the last Ukrainian. After all we have been able to test our military equipment in the field without the loss of American lives. But we must remember the lessons of the Holocaust and Gaza. We can’t wipe Russia off the map. They will be here five, ten, twenty years from now. What do we want our relationship with Russia to be then? What carrots and sticks will get us there?

Playing by the rules

This morning’s NYTimes proclaimed that:“The Biden administration, responding to the death of Aleksei A. Navalny, unveiled its largest sanctions package to date as the war in Ukraine enters its third year.”

On November 30, 2023, Phillip Dean Hancock was executed in Oklahoma. As the death penalty has been eliminated in most countries and such killing is considered immoral by millions of people around the world, what sanctions would be appropriate for them to impose on the U.S.?

A quite different case arises from killing an enemy in someone else’s country (aside from in war, where anything seems to be “allowed.”)  On February 13 of this year, Maxim Kuzminov, a former Russian military pilot who defected to Ukraine, was found dead with multiple bullet wounds in Villajoyosa, a city on Spain’s Mediterranean coast. The murder is suspected to have been organized by Moscow. What measures should Spain take against Russia in response (hopefully the U.S. will keep its nose out of other people’s business—fat chance)?

On January 3, 2020, the U.S. assassinated Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general and the commander of the Iranian Quds Force, in Baghdad. More recently, on February 7, 2024, Abu Baqir al-Saadi, a senior commander in Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Iraqi militia, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad. What measures should Iraq (and Iran) take against the U.S.?

The rule of law is a fundamental aspect of our freedoms and the prosperity it has made possible. The international rules based order is an extension of those principals internationally and has served, though imperfectly, the same purposes globally. The U.S. has become an Imperial power who doesn’t obey the rules it tries to impose on others. Thus, American influence in the world is declining rapidly. We will all suffer as a result.

Ukraine War—How does it end?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong in every way (legally, morally, strategically). Ukraine’s fight to defend its sovereignty is heroic, brave, and impressive. The U.S. is supporting Ukraine to the last Ukrainian soldier. But there are a limited number of potential Ukrainian fighters left and causalities are high.

The fighting can end when: a) Russia kills or disables Ukraine’s remaining soldiers and puts a Russian friendly President in Kyiv; b) the West (NATO) provides soldiers to support the Ukrainian Army perilously launching WWIII; c) The advice offered in the letter to President Biden from 30 congressional members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to press Zelensky and Putin to negotiate leads to a truce and end to the fighting. “CPC letter for diplomacy on Russia-Ukraine conflict”  However, the letter was later withdrawn (perhaps because the signers now foolishly believe that Ukraine can defeat Russia). “Obama already said some of what the Progressive Caucus got slammed for about Ukraine”

Of Ukraine’s total population of almost 44 million, all of fighting age and condition are on the battle fields and their numbers are shrinking every day. Of its total standing military of about 200,000 when the war began, 70,000 to 80,000 have already been killed or wounded. Another approximately 300,000 have since joined the fight. “Ukraine-Russia military comparison”    “Russia-Ukraine crisis-how big is the Ukraine army size compared to Russia’s”

Of Russia’s total population of a bit over 143 million (three times that of Ukraine), almost one million are in the military. Putin sent an estimated 190,000 into Ukraine this year. Half of them have been killed or wounded. However, unlike Ukraine, which is already all in with virtually no more potential fighters to draw on, Russia plans to send in an additional 135,000 soldiers before Spring and has 800,000 military personnel stationed elsewhere to draw on. “Putin could cripple Ukraine without using nukes”

Ukraine cannot win this war without additional soldiers from the West. “David Petraeus’s recent suggestion that Washington and its allies may want to intervene in the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev. According to Petraeus, the military action he advocates would not be a NATO intervention, but ‘a multinational force led by the US and not as a NATO force.’”  “Playing at war in Ukraine”  Just think about that for a second. Whether the resulting WWIII would be nuclear or not is an open question.

I don’t want to see Ukraine lose and I don’t want to see the start of WWIII that my children and grandchildren will hopefully survive to clean up. It was a terrible mistake for us to break our promise not to expand NATO East in the early 1990s. It was a terrible mistake for us not to insist that Ukraine honor its commitments under the Minsk agreements in2014 and 2015. It was a terrible mistake to finally (2016) build the missile launch sites in Poland and Romania first announced in 2009. It was a terrible mistake for us not to press Ukraine and Russia to negotiate their semi sensible offers the first quarter of this year. I am not sure how many more mistakes we can get away with — if any.

The Ukraine War

Ukrainian President Zelensky says his country will file an expedited application to join NATO immediately. “’De facto, we have already proven interoperability with the Alliance’s standards, they are real for Ukraine — real on the battlefield and in all aspects of our interaction,’ Zelensky said. ‘Today, Ukraine is applying to make it de jure.”  “Zelensky says Ukraine filing expedited application to join NATO”  This reverses Zelensky’s statements he made in March of his willingness to stay out of NATO.

NATO members should just say no.  Hell no! After successfully serving to protect the West from the USSR, post-Soviet NATO has become a liability. After breaking our promise not to expand NATO further east in exchange for Russia’s agreement to the reunification of Germany, NATO has done nothing but cause problems.

In December 2021, Russia released an eight-point draft treaty to prevent its invasion of Ukraine. At the top of its list was no NATO membership for Ukraine. Soon after Russia’s invasion, President Zelensky offered to give up seeking NATO membership and agreed to much of what Russia demanded. The status of the largely Russian Donetsk and Lugansk was the largest sticking point. For reasons I totally fail to understand, the United States and its NATO allies refused to remove Ukraine’s NATO membership from the table while stating that membership was not a near term prospect. “Ukraine-Russia-NATO”

In March, following Russia’s stalled Feb 23 attack on Kyiv, representatives of Russia and Ukraine met at Belovezhskaya Pushcha, on the border of Poland and Belarus, for initial ceasefire talks.

Putin made six key demands:

  1. No NATO membership and a neutral position.
  2. Russian should be the second official language of Ukraine, with laws prohibiting it abolished.
  3. Recognize Crimea as Russian territory.
  4. Recognize the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk.
  5. Demilitarization of Ukraine and abandonment of weapons that could be a threat to the Kremlin.
  6. Banning of ultra-nationalist parties and organizations in Ukraine.

Of these, only #4 would be difficult for Ukraine to accept, but no agreement was reached, and the fighting continued with more and more Western support.  “Ukraine’s and Russia’s war”  The U.S. and NATO can bring Ukraine to the peace table anytime they want (by threatening to end their military and financial support).  No compromise agreement was reached in December, February, March or beyond. And NATO keeps expanding. Why? Why is the U.S. and NATO not pushing to make a peace agreement happen? If Russia still thinks it can come out ahead, China, India and others should convince it otherwise.

In a recent column in the Washington Post former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, former U.S. senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and former U.S. energy secretary Ernest J. Moniz, all of whom serve on the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s board of directors urged China to step forward:

“The most sensible policy choice for China is to wield its unique position of influence to encourage more “rational” decision-making by Putin. In particular, President Xi must make clear to Putin that nuclear use is a line he must not cross and that nuclear saber-rattling itself threatens the global nuclear order….  The United States and China can — and must — now work together with Europe and other nations to help end this war on the “just terms” called for by Biden in his speech to the United Nations.” “Xi Putin Ukraine nuclear arms”  

Every few months, I have urged us to stop this destructive war now. As winter approaches Europe with mounting energy shortages, I say it again. Stop it now.   “End the war in Ukraine”

Econ 101:  Oil Price Cap

Among U.S. (and E.U. and some other primarily Northern countries) objectives in reacting to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is to diminish its capacity to continue this war, in part by reducing its export (largely oil and gas) income with minimum damage to the U.S. and other embargo supporters and to pressure it to the bargaining table sooner rather than later (we are trying to do that aren’t we??). As you can see from the previous sentence, this is not a particularly simple issue.

One measure being promoted by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is to cap the price at which we are willing to buy Russian oil.  If we just stop buying Russian oil all together (effectively a price of zero), global oil supply would presumably fall, and oil prices would rise. We know, of course that Russia will redirect its sales to countries not participating in the embargo, such as China and India, to the extent it can and the oil these countries would have purchased from Saudi Arabia and other suppliers would then be available to us and global oil supply would not fall as much as we might have expected nor would prices increase as much as otherwise. Much could be written about this (the limited potential of embargoes if not everyone participates), but I won’t.

The idea of Secretary Yellen’s cap is that rather than buying no Russia oil we (and all embargo participants) would continue to buy it but at an agreed price that is below normal market prices in normal time (the price cap). Thus, hopefully, Russia would still sell its oil to the West but would earn less foreign exchange from it and the West would have more oil than with a total blockage and thus avoid sharp market price increases.

“There are several outstanding issues to settle on the price-cap idea. Those include figuring out exactly how to enforce it, convincing other nations to subscribe to it and deciding the sales price at which Western countries would permit the purchase of Russian oil. Looming over the proposal is also the presumption that Russia would continue to sell oil at a price mandated by the U.S. and its allies.”  “WSJ: Janet Yellen begins Asia trip to win support for cap on Russian oil price”

“Some economists and oil industry experts are skeptical that the plan will work, either as a way to reduce revenues for the Kremlin or to push down prices at the pump. They warn the plan could mostly enrich oil refiners and could be ripe for evasion by Russia and its allies. Moscow could refuse to sell at the capped price…. 

“Mr. Biden… moved swiftly to ban imports of Russian oil to the United States and coordinate similar bans among allies. In some ways, the price-cap proposal is an acknowledgment that those penalties have not worked as intended: Russia has continued to sell oil at elevated prices — even accounting for the discounts it is giving to buyers like India and China, which did not join in the oil sanctions — while Western drivers pay a premium….

“The cap plan seeks to keep the Russian oil moving to market, but only if it is steeply discounted. Russia could still ship its oil with Western backing if that oil is sold for no more than a price set by the cap.”  “NYT Biden gas price cap Russia”

John Bolton, whose view I don’t generally share, said about Yellen’s oil price cap: “The proposal, academic and untried, faces multiple practical obstacles and uncertainties. Widespread sanctions violations by Russian maritime cargoes already exist, with no reason to think the oil-price cap is more enforceable.” “WP: Biden oil price cap-Russia Sanctions”

Such efforts to “hurt” Russia cannot avoid also hurting us. What other approaches might the Biden administration consider?

“The White House… has held off for months on backing a gas tax holiday, amid divisions within the Democratic Party and skepticism a roughly 18.4 cent-per-gallon discount would be passed on to consumers….  In private meetings with senior Energy Department officials to discuss ideas for boosting supply and lowering prices, some industry representatives have instead used the sessions to push for longer-term priorities like building pipelines and easing environmental restrictions.”  “Politico: White House-Biden-gas prices”

“Rep. Kim Schrier, D-Wash.,… called it “infuriating” that spikes in gas prices were “happening at the same time that gas and oil companies are making record profits and taking advantage of international crises to make a profit. This must stop.″ “PBS: House approves bill to combat gasoline price gouging”

When the supply of a product falls short of its demand, the gap can be closed in one of two ways. Both involve rationing a scarce commodity as is required for anything in limited supply which is virtually everything. The first approach—the market approach of price rationing—allocates the product to those who want it the most, i.e. those who are willing to pay the most for it. The second approach—the administrative allocation approach—allocates the product to those the government agency responsible for choosing who gets it, determine are most worthy or in most need of it based on the criteria the agency sets (which in practice invariably includes friends and relatives). History has clearly documented which of these methods of allocation works best.  Some of you will remember the long lines at gas stations when President Richard Nixon capped gasoline prices (another form of rationing).

That leaves measures that encourage increased supply from everywhere except Russia or that facilitate reducing demand. “Biden officials are openly pleading with Big Oil to pump more, not less. ‘We want them to get their rig counts up. We want them to increase production so that people are not hurting,’ [Energy Secretary Jennifer] Granholm said.”  “CNN: Gas prices-Biden-inflation” A higher price at the pump provides the market a strong incentive to increase supply, but that generally takes years to achieve much of an increase. In the interim profits of the suppliers will be higher than usual.

Some months back policy sought to reduce the consumption of carbon omitting products as part of our effort to slow global warming. For that objective an increase in gasoline prices would be a good thing, whether from a gas tax or restrictions on finding and pumping more oil out of the ground.

For the moment, encouraging more production by Saudi Arabia and other (non Russian) members of OPEC would be helpful. Finally rejoining the JCPOA (Iran deal), Trump’s withdrawal from which Max Boot called the “single worst diplomatic blunder in U.S. history” “WP: Trump-Biden Iran nuclear deal dead with no alternative”, would, among other important things, increase an important source of oil supply, as would dropping sanctions on Venezuela. If we can make deals with Saudi Arabia, given all it has done, deals with Iran and Venezuela should be no brainers.

Ending the war in Ukraine promptly is the most important measure for addressing the shortage of oil (and food more generally). “End the war in Ukraine”

End the war in Ukraine

With regard to Russia’s war in Ukraine, are you in the “peace camp” or the “Justice camp”? Do you want a peace agreement to end the war or do you want to punish Russia for the terrible things it has done no matter how long it takes?  “The Economist on Ukraine” It is rarely wise to take strategic decisions when enraged by someone’s behavior. It is currently hard not to want to flatten Russia for its illegal and brutal war with Ukraine (the Justice camp) but it would not be in our or the world’s interest to do so (Peace camp).  “The Russian war in Ukraine”

Everyone will suffer from continuing the war even without escalation. The world will suffer serious food shortages, oil and gas shortages, disruption and reorganization of the global trading system, and Ukraine and its economy will be in ruins.  And no one should forget that Russia is a nuclear power, in fact it has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Ukraine President Zelensky said that he is willing to keep Ukraine neutral and out of NATO (but in the EU). He also demanded that Russia withdraw to the territories it occupied on February 23, 2022, which included the Crimea and parts of the largely Russian speaking Donbas. In a face-to-face interview with the managing editor of the Economist magazine on March 27 and as quoted in my blog above, Zelensky stated that: “Victory is being able to save as many lives as possible…because without this nothing would make sense. Our land is important, yes, but ultimately, it’s just territory.”

But on April 17, “President Volodymyr Zelensky told CNN that Ukraine is not willing to give up territory in the eastern part of the country to end the war with Russia.”   “Zelensky Russia war tapper interview-cnn-tv”  

Speaking at the Davos World Economic Forum last week, Henry Kissinger stated that “it’s time to think about a diplomatic settlement to end the war, and that settlement will have to include territorial concessions to Russia. ‘Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,’ referring to the pre-war lines in which Russia controlled the Crimean Peninsula and approximately a third of territory in the Donbas. ‘Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.’” “Does Henry Kissinger have a point?”

It is politically very difficult for either Ukraine or Russia to give up territory they hold or aspire to.  Edward Luttwak, a strategist and author of “The Logic of War and Peace” among many other books, has proposed a solution to this political dilemma, which like all political compromises should be acceptable to both sides without being fully satisfactory to either.  He proposes to settle the territorial issues via an internationally supervised plebiscite for determining the fate of each Oblast:

“That leaves the disposition of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, substantial territories that Zelensky does not have the authority to give up, and without which Putin cannot leave the table where he has gambled and lost so much. While Putin cannot be given the two regions he demanded before starting the war, he can be provided with something that he can portray as a victory: plebiscites in both regions where properly certified residents, including returning refugees, would be allowed to vote on whether their oblast should remain Ukrainian or join Russia.

“Upon acceptance of the plebiscites in principle, a cease-fire would come into immediate effect, with Russia’s respect of their terms guaranteed by the ease of reimposing sanctions just lifted.”  “How the Ukraine war must end”  Allowing the residents of each region to determine their own affiliation can hardly be objectionable to the rest of us.

The Justice Camp and the military industry that cheers it on should yield to the Peace Camp in the interest of all of us.  “Ukraine’s and Russia’s war”

Ukraine’s and Russia’s War

Russia’s attack on Ukraine is horrifying, unjustified and illegal. We can’t help admiring the courage of the Ukrainian people in attempting to defend their country nor being enraged at Russia’s brutality.

In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, Alexander Vindman argued that: “America Must Embrace the Goal of Ukrainian Victory  It’s Time to Move Past Washington’s Cautious Approach” “Will America embrace Ukraine victory goal?”  Vindman, best known to us as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, was born in Ukraine. It is understandable, but not excusable, that Vindman puts Ukraine’s interests above those of the United States.

As a naturalized American, Vindman proved his patriotism by testifying on October 29, 2019, before the U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, for whom he worked as a member of the White House’s National Security Council. But when determining our role in Ukraine’s war with Russia, we should give primacy to America’s best interests in both the short and long term.

Historian and military expert Edward Luttwak tweeted recently that “Friends complain that my suggested war aim of restoring the Feb 23, 2022, status quo ante is too modest; some want the expulsion of all Russian forces from all parts of Ukraine incl Crimea, with others emphasizing the need to drive Putin from office. But both mean much more war…”  “Luttwak on war in Ukraine”

It is hard not to sympathize with the desire to punish Russia for what Putin has done and is doing—i.e., to demand justice. Many aspects of the world are not to our liking or of our making, even here at home. But we must deal rationally with the world that exists in the hopes of moving it bit by bit toward a better place.

In today’s Washington Post Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Catlin Talmadge wrote an oped titled: “The U.S. is expanding its goals in Ukraine. That’s dangerous. Comments by political and military leaders suggest the goal is no longer to drive Russia to the negotiating table but to seek a total defeat of Russian forces. That increases the odds of catastrophe.”

 “Talk of total victory aligns well with another recently floated objective: an extended bloodletting of the Russian army. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin asserted on April 25 that the United States wants ‘to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.’ Yet crippling Russia’s military or expelling Russia from Ukraine are significantly more dangerous aims than preventing the further loss of Ukrainian territory or, through limited offensive operations, gaining some of it back. Unfortunately, if Russian President Vladimir Putin begins to think that his back is against the wall, he may lash out by directly confronting NATO, intensifying the conventional war in the east, or even using nuclear weapons.” “Ukraine war expansion risks nuclear”

Mr. Vindman wants us to make Russia a permanent enemy. That is never a good objective. Over the last half year both Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin have offered peace conditions that represented reasonable starting points for serious negotiations. Why haven’t we pressed them both to the negotiating table?

Vindman stated that: “A Ukrainian victory against Russia will be defined, first and foremost, by the Ukrainians themselves.” But then he also says that the US should give Ukraine more and better weapons. I am not sure that he sees the disconnect here. We should not push Putin into feeling he must escalate or lose. We should exert maximum pressure to bring this war to an end that is acceptable to both Ukrainian and Russian people and in a way that opens the door to a more peaceful Russia in the future. “Ukraine-France playing good cop with Putin”

Aside from the strong emotional desire to punish Russia for what it is doing, several of the usual suspects are dangerously prolonging this war. Billions of dollars are pouring into our defense industries, which, as always, have a profit incentive to keep things going. Though we are confronted with horrifying pictures of mangled buildings and bodies, they are “over there” somewhere. For most Americans the assumed horrors of war are academic, while in fact they are all too real for those involved. The huge cost of war in lives lost, human suffering, and economic and property damage are rarely given the weight they deserve as we cheer on the brave Ukrainians fighting to the last Ukrainian. Those very well-meaning Americans thanking our soldiers for their service rarely have any idea what we have asked of them to go and fight in other people’s wars.

So our emotions cry out to smash and punish the Russians. But how it ends will have a large impact on conditions in the world ten or twenty years from now. Our standard of living and the degree of security and cooperation in the world—particularly with Russia—will depend on when and how this war ends. We need to temper our emotions and engage our minds.

Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, looked quite different at the end than they did as we undertook them. Ukraine is ranked only slightly less corrupt than Russia. “Transparency International” It is much more difficult doing business there than in Russia (Ease of doing business ranking lists New Zealand at the top, Russia 29 and Ukraine 64). “World Bank Ease of Doing Business index”  Thus it is a small wonder that John Hudson wrote in today’s Washington Post that: “Flood of weapons to Ukraine raises fear of arms smuggling Vague U.S. assurances spark concern about lost military equipment in Ukraine, a longtime hub of arms trafficking.” “Ukraine weapons trafficking”

It is too late to point fingers and ask why we did not press Ukraine and Russia to the bargaining table six months ago or four months ago. It is in our self-interest and the interest of Europe and the world to do so now.