Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s at Stake in Ukraine? What’s an Acceptable Outcome and for Whom?
What is at stake in Ukraine?
For the Ukrainian State? For the inhabitants of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea?
For the US? For European countries? For Russia? For the rest of us?
I think the answer for each of these would be a bit different — and that would inform what an acceptable outcome to the conflict would be.
So, the surface issues:
Territorial integrity and the agreement that countries cannot invade each other just to change their borders. Post-WWII stability has sort of hung on this principle, though there are some instances of this happening, de facto if not de jure. But still — undermine this principle and you open a Pandora’s Box.
Self-determination. People should live in a state whose government is representative. This is harder to argue. There are a lot of non-representative governments around and they aren’t denied diplomatic legitimacy on that basis. It’s also more problematic — what if self-determination for a minority is at odds with the territorial integrity of a state? It’s a relevant question from Donbas to Kashmir (and it’s relevant to the Maidan revolution itself).
Sovereignty. States have the right to join, or not join, any alliance or organisation that they want if it wants them to. Again, sound in principle but less upheld in practice. Ukraine has the legal right to apply to join NATO and the EU. Germany has the legal right to buy oil and gas from Russia. But can they really?
Of course, all of these are mediated, in the real world, by power. The principle is one thing. The practice, the possibility, another. As the conflict has progressed, some murkier issues have come to the fore — and predictably they aren’t about principle but about power:
Which country’s interests will dominate NATO and the EU? Which country’s interests will be sacrificed? Based on? And what does that mean for the future of NATO and the EU? What will the political/geostrategic outcome from the use of force (overt and covert, imho likely to be internal to countries) to maintain these hierarchies of interests be?
US prosperity depends, in part (how significant?), on the dollar serving as the international reserve currency, in turn, a function of the petrodollar. Russia is bucking the petrodollar by demanding payment for energy exports in Rubles. If this sets a trend and undermines the petrodollar, is that actually a bigger deal for the US than Ukraine and NATO? What about the impact of the US basically confiscating the contents of Russia’s US bank accounts? How will that impact the US dollar’s status as a global reserve, and what impact will that have on US prosperity? Where will capital accumulate in the future?
A big takeaway from this for the Global South is that depending on imported food makes you vulnerable — not least because some of the first exports from Ukraine went to Britain for animal feed rather than Africa to feed people. How will that affect poor countries’ interactions with the World Bank and the IMF, whose development model hinges on industrial development at the expense of agricultural development? How about the allocation of capital in the Global North?
All of these seem to be expressions of whatever you call the version of empire we live in today. And while it is bizarre that Putin, invading Ukraine to annex part of it and to dominate the rest, has something to say about it, it’s still thought-provoking. From his (rather long) speech on Friday:
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the West decided that the world and all of us would permanently accede to its dictates. In 1991, the West thought that Russia would never rise after such shocks and would fall to pieces on its own. This almost happened. We remember the horrible 1990s, hungry, cold and hopeless. But Russia remained standing, came alive, grew stronger and occupied its rightful place in the world…
The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system which allows it to live off the world, to plunder it thanks to the domination of the dollar and technology, to collect an actual tribute from humanity, to extract its primary source of unearned prosperity, the rent paid to the hegemon. The preservation of this annuity is their main, real and absolutely self-serving motivation. This is why total de-sovereignisation is in their interest. This explains their aggression towards independent states, traditional values and authentic cultures, their attempts to undermine international and integration processes, new global currencies and technological development centres they cannot control. It is critically important for them to force all countries to surrender their sovereignty to the United States.
Basically: is the war in Ukraine about preserving the West’s, and especially the US’, global domination?
(If it is, I’m really not looking forward to the conflict with China.)
Which question appears pertinent (or crazy) depends on who and where we are. But the most relevant question to you will also be the one whose answer will lead to what you think is an acceptable outcome in Ukraine (and why).
Ricochet, what are your thoughts on this?
Published in General
Corporations like Samsung make some damn good refrigerators.
You could have at least included the current administrations stance on fossil fuel energy production. They are fine with it everywhere in the world except America. What’s behind that?
Appropriate behavior for a corporation in lieu of ruling politically. Why can’t Pfizer do that?
Oh, I forgot Pfizer. I took the Pfizer covid vaccine. I feel so much better now that Bill Gates controls my every thought.
Why did you take the Pfizer Covid vaccine?
Why does anyone take any vaccine? Why does anyone take any medicine?
Apologies for coming to this discussion late. This comment was originally posted to @balldiamondball’s poll RE: “US boots on the ground”, but it’s more appropriate here:
A tip o’ the hat to @zafar for asking the $64,000 question: What are the US national interests (i.e., strategic objectives) in Ukraine? As yet, the Biden administration has declined to identify exactly WHAT the US seeks to achieve here. To be fair…there hasn’t been a coherent US national military strategy (the policy guidelines that cover the use of military forces, material, infrastructure, etc) since 2009. This is not a new problem.
Now I’ll go back and read the comments posted so far…
That, my friend, is undergoing dramatic change with the loss of confidence in the medical establishment.
I think you are correct. Why then is Congress sending all this aid?
This is also a great question; here is my unvarnished, honest-to-goodness answer. Congress has allowed itself to become so emasculated to the Administrative state, that it doesn’t even know how to shut off the funding streams. The leadership of either party is made-up of gutless cowards, too frightened of actually standing up to the “three letter agencies” to actually perform their duties. (I’d call them “spineless,” but that would be insulting to invertebrates…)
I suppose one could use “folk medicine” or “alternative medicine,” but there isn’t much empirical data to support those options.
My answer is to use the serial killer analogy. There is a serial killer loose and he has killed 24 people, but none of the victims are me, my family, my friends or co-workers. Yet I still want this serial killer stopped, both out of self interest and based on abstract moral considerations.
We have been known to lock up the wrong person on occasion. How does this happen? When the interest in investigating to get the correct result is not on the agenda. As earlier mentioned about Pfizer , lack of congressional interest and action has allowed the federal bureaucracy to destroy the medical, educational, housing, and energy institutions of America. The wealth in the corporate sector has no problem getting their attention. Money talks.
“We’ve been known to lock up the wrong person. Therefore, we shouldn’t try to detain the serial killer that is loose.”
Um. No.
Missed the point altogether reflecting the strength of the one-track mind.
Maybe you don’t know how to put together a coherent argument.
So you would like for us to accept your reasoning for why America should be supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia instead of the American people being provided with such reasons by their elected representatives.
Moderator Note:
People come to Ricochet for civil conversation, not insults.I actually don’t care if you accept reasoning or not, [redacted]
You are right. As a practical matter if both states agree, the Congress goes along with it. There was a part of Massachusetts in far southwest Massachusetts which stuck out a few miles into New York, which was behind a mountain range. There were no roads there, and criminals from New York would flee there. New York wanted this corner to stop being a safe place for criminals and Massachusetts did not want to extend services to it. They both passed laws slicing off this corner and giving it to New York. Congress agreed.
Arizona is the “Grand Canyon State.” The Grand Canyon is beautiful, and it up is a mile deep and many miles across. Criminals in the polygamous town of Colorado City must the taken from Arizona to Utah to Arizona to Nevada to Arizona to get to the County Seat of Kingman. Virtually everyone in the Arizona Strip shops in Utah. Yes, the Arizona Strip should be transferred from Arizona to Utah.
I am half German and half English. (Both sides of my family tree were here long before the Revolutionary War.) I have an affinity for Europe, that I don’t have for, say, Ethiopia. The Ukraine War is by far the largest war in Europe since 1945, which was 77 years ago. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine must not stand.
GlenEisenhardt (View Comment):
No ICBMs and nukes in 1787. No strategic bombers. Max range of a cannon in 1780 was probably a mile. Makes a big difference. The US has pursed a policy of preventing any nation from dominating the Eurasian land mass for over a century-for very sound reasons.
George was no fool- he would understand.
It is clear that Congress supports aiding Ukraine. Perhaps you should take a hint.
What’s an acceptable outcome and for whom?
If I were to be a Pollyanna about this conflict I would hope that at a minimum :
• The State of Ukraine could be maintained somehow.
• I would think that the Separatist Donbas regions would need be given some sort of super- Federalist status where neither Russia or Ukraine could control them politically but they still would be part of the Ukraine.
The most difficult issue to me is dealing with inalienable rights of ethnic Russians in the Donbas if Ukraine takes over or dealing with inalienable rights of the ethnic Ukrainians in those regions if Russia takes over. That issue also repeats itself to a lesser extent in the rest of Ukraine. There would have to be some fairly ironclad guarantees that those rights would be upheld and it doesn’t help very much that the Zelensky government is only a hop, skip and a jump away from being a Totalitarian regime as is our current Administration. War Crimes trials cannot be allowed to happen for behavior on either side because there have been multiple really bad acts on both sides and if one tries to prosecute those things the war will never end and retributions will rule the day.
• I would think that Ukraine would have to become a genuine buffer state in all respects. The Biden Administration, the State Dept., NATO, and Russia would all have to butt out completely. Russia would have to give up it’s naval base in the Crimea, but there could no more meddling in Ukrainian affairs by the State Dept or by the WEF which now be looked at as some sore of post Westphalian state.
• Perhaps, but probably not, Ukraine could be allowed to join the EU with some sort of special status but I really don’t think the EU will survive in it’s present form and the EU would have to reform itself. Perhaps Good Riddance to that.
But those are just some of my initial thoughts albeit from a Pollyanna perspective. Great Post.
An acceptable outcome would be for the Russian military to go back to Russia.
Xerxes made the same mistake at Thermopylae
A totally ridiculous comparison. The Donbas republics are phony pseudo states created by Putin as a pretext to invade. It is as legitimate as 13 Mexicans in a trailer park in East LA calling on Mexico to invade & save them from oppression.
While begging for forgiveness.
Maybe let Ukraine decide what alliances it wants-ie full sovereignty as guaranteed by the Budapest accords.
Before the 2nd invasion, Russia wanted a federal system where the “Donbas Republics” had a veto over Ukrainian policy. That is unacceptable.
Whoever thinks Ukraine should be a buffer state is no friend of Ukraine. Nobody wants to be a buffer state. That means you live at the sufferance of others. Ask Poland & the Baltic states That is why they are in NATO & why Ukraine has similar aspirations.
Russia has no right to demand Ukraine be subservient to its delusions.
Most likely true. Most likely a Democrat crony stole / repurpose the money for better use by them.