Red_Dragon wrote:
Well, Pavel Filatyev appears to not understand the rationale. Please, please: understanding and agreeing are separate notions. They are not the same. Many rich country soldiers have a rather elementary or poor understanding of national security and strategic considerations. Their opinions and attitudes still matter.
Then we have a number of reports that Russian soldiers were given little information and rationale leading up to the invasion. That hints at the notion that Russia's invasion was somewhat spontaneous but if you back up, that is clearly not the case.
Pavel Filatyev's description suggests more than a few Russian soldiers were caught off guard by the often hostile reception by civilians and the determined defensive fire by Ukrainian forces, militia and other irregulars. Disillusioned soldiers will eventually weigh heavily on Russia's willingness to continue this conflict and settle in the for the long haul.
This war may currently enjoy the support of most Russians. That could erode going forward. I don't have a clear picture but we already observe some sub-cultural schisms in Russian society in regards to supporting the Ukraine invasion.
That said, it is important to recognize several key factors:
- for the Russian old guard and security establishment, this is an existential conflict. See Russian history.
- this war has the reasonably solid support of Russian political and security elites. For the moment.
- Russia has been preparing for this possibility for a long time.
- little strategic planning went into according the Baltic states and Poland NATO membership; similarly little strategic planning went into choices regarding economic and financial sanctions levied at Russia and its citizens. These sanctions have more than likely already driven most European economies and the US economy into recession.
- US-lead NATO managed to deftly revive the non-aligned movement. BRICS could soon become BRICSA. Trade patterns are and will continue to shift. BRICSA member countries do not mean the USA or its citizens harm; they simply do not want to be harmed by US policy. Naturally, US hegemony will decline at an accelerated pace.
- Russia has the capacity to engage US-lead NATO through proxy nation Ukraine for longer than the Ukraine, the US and US-ally nations can stand it.
- Ukraine has already paid an enormous price and will continue to pay an astronomical price in human lives and welfare if this conflict drags.
- Much of Europe is going into a sharp recession and may have to ration heating and lighting this coming winter. The USA is likely already in recession though optimistically it should not be deep or long. This not a good time to be poor on fixed income or a low-income earner in the USA.
- US economic and financial sanctions in the post-war period have been remarkably ineffective and costly. Other nations can reasonably anticipate that the US will continue to levy harsh sanctions against non-allied nations because they politically sell in the USA despite the collective costs and political risks.
- Chair Powell
et al are still acting Dovish. That simply means even more pain and suffering for America's most vulnerable slightly farther down the road.
Long-term solution?
So how do we put this costly and extremely dangerous conflict behind us?
I have no prior preferences for Ukraine other than a deep sadness for its long far too often bloody career. I see it as a dog's breakfast of a country where people do not play particularly well together. Ukraine makes me think of a few Black African countries where European colonial powers carved up tribal and pre-colonial 'national' groups into separate nation states and lumped incompatible others together. That is not necessarily the best metaphor.
Nigeria, for example, verges on a failed state. Ukraine is poor and not a great place to invest (coincidence?) but it was a functioning nation state that allowed itself to be lulled into a false sense of security by not entirely credible assurances from the US leaders. Ex: Vietnam, Kurds, Afghanistan, Somalia.
Viewing American 'commitments' as iron-clad is fraught with risk. It is important to recognize how special interests and myopic political considerations drive US foreign policy. Or risk becoming State Dept. roadkill.
Taking shape?
I believe we already know the rough shape of a lasting and durable settlement though the appetite for prolonging the conflict appears to be still quite high. The eastern Russian ethnic-dominated regions will become independent and autonomous protectorates of Russia. Ukraine, the US and NATO will agree to refraining from according Ukraine NATO membership.
There might be agreements restricting weapons assistance and deployment in both Ukraine and the eastern Russian-ethnic buffer zone. A negotiated partial disarmament.
In the best outcome, economic and financial relations are normalized relatively quickly. Europe would be a colossal fool to not continue buying natural gas and other forms of energy and commodities from Russia.
Canada, USA, Australia and several Gulf of Persia countries would all benefit enormously if Europe stopped buying Russian natural gas. At the same time, a number of politically sensitive commodity prices would continue to stay high — oil, fertilizer, grains — if this conflict drags. BRICSA would take on greater material importance.
