My earlier piece on May 9th gave three possible outcomes for this conflict which can be summarised as follows:
1. A negotiated peace, in the absence of which there will be continued fighting to establishing a new Russian border incorporating the Donbas and the southern (Mariupol) corridor to Crimea. This contested stalemate would likely continue for many years.
2. Western involvement, NATO troops engaged on the ground, likely leading to a nuclear conflict with unpredictable results and long-term consequences for a very changed world.
3. Some form of regime-change in Russia. This is unlikely, given Putin’s position and the steadfastness of his ‘electorate’. Any such change would therefore have to take place with his consent. This option can be dismissed.
Many press editorials and letters advocate Option 2, which would lead to an escalation and an expanded conflict. Supplying longer range rockets and more complex weapon systems are direct forms of escalation which could set us on a path either accidentally or deliberately toward NATO troops on the ground, and from there to nuclear war.
If complex weapons are fired at Russia they will respond. If missiles are launched at Russia, their systems will detect the launch and they will fire missiles in return. An accident or a nervous commander too near the firing codes, and the whole thing could go nuclear. This revisits the military doctrine of the 1970s known as Mutually Assured Destruction, where peace was maintained in the knowledge that if they launched missiles at us, we would retaliate and totally ‘nuke’ them. The acronym ‘MAD’ said it all.
The Ukrainians are already running into problems in that they are reporting shortages of ammunition. President Biden said on 3rd May that his government had “nearly exhausted” Congressionally approved funding that could be used for more help. Time will also be needed to train Ukrainians to operate newly supplied weapon systems.
If negotiation is a viable route, how do you arrive at a solution? There are three sides of this conflict, Ukraine, Russia, and what could be termed ‘the West’, and each side has a very different viewpoint and perception. But differences in truth and perception can be resolved. The task here is to find a solution which is simple, and clear for all to see.
The ongoing tragedy of this war is the cost of at least twelve million displaced persons, of whom seven million are refugees. In addition, the cost of rebuilding cities and infrastructure will go on for years.
So how can this be resolved? The Ukrainians want this bloody and destructive war to end so they can rebuild their country, and with this they want a return to the status quo ante, membership of the EU, the return of Ukrainians evacuated to Russia, and accountability for war crimes. Russia wants to retain the Crimea and the Donbas, and now wants the ‘Southern Corridor’ which connects with Crimea. The West wishes to inflict some kind of ‘accountability’ on Russia
There are a series of trade-offs here. Ukrainian and Russian aims are not incompatible or as far apart as commentators may think, and such trade-offs and compromises can address Western concerns. These negotiations would require very delicate handling.
In his much-misquoted speech at Davos on 23rd May, Dr. Henry Kissinger said that the West should stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russia and suggested that Ukraine should be prepared to give up territory. He advocated a speedy return to the status quo ante ‘before it creates upheavals and tensions that will be even harder to overcome’.
What is left out here is the Russian demand for the ‘Southern corridor’ to Crimea, and an as yet unspoken Ukrainian demand for money to rebuild a shattered country. In terms that both Russians and Ukrainians would very easily understand, there is a trade-off or a series of trade-offs that can be entered into in terms of who gives, and who pays. Delicate negotiations would have to be carefully handled. Problem somewhat over-simplified, but the argument (again) is for a negotiated solution (and this is achievable) rather than a nuclear holocaust.
My earlier piece on May 9th gave three possible outcomes for this conflict which can be summarised as follows:
1. A negotiated peace, in the absence of which there will be continued fighting to establishing a new Russian border incorporating the Donbas and the southern (Mariupol) corridor to Crimea. This contested stalemate would likely continue for many years.
2. Western involvement, NATO troops engaged on the ground, likely leading to a nuclear conflict with unpredictable results and long-term consequences for a very changed world.
3. Some form of regime-change in Russia. This is unlikely, given Putin’s position and the steadfastness of his ‘electorate’. Any such change would therefore have to take place with his consent. This option can be dismissed.
Many press editorials and letters advocate Option 2, which would lead to an escalation and an expanded conflict. Supplying longer range rockets and more complex weapon systems are direct forms of escalation which could set us on a path either accidentally or deliberately toward NATO troops on the ground, and from there to nuclear war.
If complex weapons are fired at Russia they will respond. If missiles are launched at Russia, their systems will detect the launch and they will fire missiles in return. An accident or a nervous commander too near the firing codes, and the whole thing could go nuclear. This revisits the military doctrine of the 1970s known as Mutually Assured Destruction, where peace was maintained in the knowledge that if they launched missiles at us, we would retaliate and totally ‘nuke’ them. The acronym ‘MAD’ said it all.
The Ukrainians are already running into problems in that they are reporting shortages of ammunition. President Biden said on 3rd May that his government had “nearly exhausted” Congressionally approved funding that could be used for more help. Time will also be needed to train Ukrainians to operate newly supplied weapon systems.
If negotiation is a viable route, how do you arrive at a solution? There are three sides of this conflict, Ukraine, Russia, and what could be termed ‘the West’, and each side has a very different viewpoint and perception. But differences in truth and perception can be resolved. The task here is to find a solution which is simple, and clear for all to see.
The ongoing tragedy of this war is the cost of at least twelve million displaced persons, of whom seven million are refugees. In addition, the cost of rebuilding cities and infrastructure will go on for years.
So how can this be resolved? The Ukrainians want this bloody and destructive war to end so they can rebuild their country, and with this they want a return to the status quo ante, membership of the EU, the return of Ukrainians evacuated to Russia, and accountability for war crimes. Russia wants to retain the Crimea and the Donbas, and now wants the ‘Southern Corridor’ which connects with Crimea. The West wishes to inflict some kind of ‘accountability’ on Russia
There are a series of trade-offs here. Ukrainian and Russian aims are not incompatible or as far apart as commentators may think, and such trade-offs and compromises can address Western concerns. These negotiations would require very delicate handling.
In his much-misquoted speech at Davos on 23rd May, Dr. Henry Kissinger said that the West should stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russia and suggested that Ukraine should be prepared to give up territory. He advocated a speedy return to the status quo ante ‘before it creates upheavals and tensions that will be even harder to overcome’.
What is left out here is the Russian demand for the ‘Southern corridor’ to Crimea, and an as yet unspoken Ukrainian demand for money to rebuild a shattered country. In terms that both Russians and Ukrainians would very easily understand, there is a trade-off or a series of trade-offs that can be entered into in terms of who gives, and who pays. Delicate negotiations would have to be carefully handled. Problem somewhat over-simplified, but the argument (again) is for a negotiated solution (and this is achievable) rather than a nuclear holocaust.