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
You nailed it. Whether Zafar realizes it or not, he is obfuscating the cause of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Polls show that Zelensky has an approval rating of over 90 percent. And other political leaders have very high approval ratings as well.
The Ukrainian people are very much united in not being Russia.
It’s similar to why “Chinese unification” isn’t popular in Taiwan if that means one must live under the Chinese dictatorship rather than the representative government of Taiwan.
If you simply say, “Bah! They are all authoritarian, corrupt, kleptocratic,” you ignore the aspirations of the people to stay out from under the boot of dictatorship.
@Zafar. I am OK with supplying Ukraine with pretty much any conventional weapon. I would not have an issue with the Ukraine launching air or artillery strikes into Pre-2010 Russian Borders. I would tell Ukraine that the support would be cutoff if they put regular troops on the ground into Pre-2010 Russian Borders ( OK with Specials Forces strikes ). Within the Pre-2010 Ukrainian borders, I would leave it up the Russian and Ukrainian militaries to resolve it ( while making sure that the Ukrainian military had sufficient resources ).
My Redline for U.S. Military Involvement would be Russian attacks on U.S. Allies who were invested in their own defense. Germany and Turkey seem to love and respect Russia more than they love and respect the USA; not sure I would intervene if Russia invaded them. Britain, Poland and France seem quite invested in their own defense, I would intervene to support them.
Your point in providing that reference seems to be that Egypt has a representative government or that the folks at Wikipedia think that Egypt have a representative government? Or no?
It’s not clear if you think that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information for any and all things.
So, I don’t think I understand the point you are making by presenting that reference.
The head of the largest banned party (Medvedchuk- heck Putin is his daughters God-father) was a traitor- you should note he was involved in the latest prisoner swap- ie the Russians consider him one of their own. The basis of your claim is incorrect- under wartime martial law is commonly invoked and the banning of parties linked to Russia-ie the invader- is logical. They aren’t banned b/c they are “opposition parties”, they are banned for being pro-Russian.
Good article a lot of good comments. The basic reality for me is that Putin did what he did because he overestimated his power and correctly read the US and China. We’re weak and indecisive and China knows what it wants and has the power to get it if Biden continues in power. We have one election to reverse this and the amount of fraud will be massive. If they win, we’ll have to separate or representative government dies and with it global wealth. When was it that top down worked for long?
Actually, Putin incorrectly read the US. He didn’t expect us to aid Ukraine so aggressively- he expected Biden to waffle a lot more than he did & expected Germany to essentially block much of other European countries from aiding Ukraine.
I would have agreed with Putin’s initial read of Biden- but altho Joe has been leading from behind, he has been dragged into giving more support than he really wants to by the incredible resistance Ukraine has demonstrated and by the former Warsaw Pact members & Baltic states strong support for Ukraine.
the real killer for Putin was his failure to rapidly sieze Kyiv and thereby presenting a fait accompli to the West (obviously secondary to his vastly underestimating the Ukrainian military)- which would make it easy for Germany to shrug its shoulders and go on with business as usual- and for Biden to insist it is too late to help. Putin added to his miscalculation by allowing the Russian army to carry out multiple atrocities thereby galvanizing public opinion in the West.
MiMac,
Thank your for adding some sobriety to this discussion. It is a very welcome change in tone.
He over estimated his ability to crush the Ukraine rapidly and that led us to have to do something, but be careful. The challenge is China, not Russia. As long as we don’t commit troops and just use it to develop our military production we’re ok. But China is the threat, not Russia. They invaded because they read us correctly but we had to help once it was clear Russia overestimated its capacity and underestimated the Ukraine. Nothing fundamental has been changed. We’re still in the hands of powerful interests tied to China and it will end the Republic if we don’t sort it out.
Poland and the Baltic states’ ascension into NATO was precisely because NATO wanted them as buffer states to protect Western Europe. Their status didn’t change, just their paymasters. Definitely a major upgrade from the Soviet days, no question about that, but let’s not delude ourselves about their geopolitical role and the subservience (again, much milder than during Soviet days) to US/Western Europe interests that that entails.
They both are problems. China is a bigger threat, but Russia is a major destabilizer and has delusions of being a superpower. It has the GDP of Italy, the politics of Belarus and nuclear weapons. But fortunately, Putin’s megalomania clouded his judgement- he should have let China go 1st & then when we were busy with Xi, he should have struck. But he felt pressed for time b/c Ukraine was becoming more powerful with the Western training and the political reforms after the Maidan revolution- so he did not want to wait. His economy had faltered since about 2012 and his ability to invest more in the military was waning. Dictatorships are always more dangerous when they think their relative power has peaked and they need to act now to cement their positions. We are likely in a similar position with China- her economic growth has significantly slowed and her demographics are grim. We need to invest more in our military and bolster our allies. Luckily, Putin has pushed many nations back into our arms and we are in position to lead a strengthening of our alliances. But the Obama & Biden administrations have adopted Alfred E Newman’s foreign policy- “ what me worry” and seek an insane nuclear deal with Iran (who will cheat in any deal) and to be “flexible” with Russia & China. They see foreign policy as a distraction from their agenda of remaking the US. Joe would rather spend $400B-$1T buying college students votes than invest half that amount in detering China. He hopes to kick the can down the road to the next administration and expects to be in a nursing home when the bill for neglect comes due ( while James & Hunter hope to cash in before then).
Please name just, say, 5 of these “many” nations.
Here is at least 12- number in parentheses:
-Germany (1)upping defense expenditures to >2% of GDP (Trump tried but couldn’t get them to do so-thanks Vladimir!)
-Poland (2)vastly increasing size of ground forces- wants to buy/build 500 HIMARS, thousands of armored vehicles.
-Sweden (3)joins NATO.
-Finland (4)joins NATO.
– Additionally: France, Italy(5), the Netherlands(6), Portugal(7), Spain (8)and Sweden have proclaimed their intention to spend more in line with NATO and EU targets, and countries that already meet the 2% target – such as several Baltic states and eastern NATO allies – will spend more in future.
“President Emmanuel Macron has pledged a sharp increase in military spending — which is already $45 billion, more than 10 percent of the government’s total budget — if he wins the presidential election next month….Estonia [defense spending] that will rise to 2.5 percent.”…..Belgium(9), Italy, Poland, Latvia(10), Lithuania(11), Norway(12) and Sweden….have also announced increases to their defense budgets.” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/business/economy/european-union-military-spending.html
i need not mention there is a country southwest of Poland and south of Belarus that will gladly sign a treaty allying itself with the USA- plus they are really good at destroying Russian hardware.
Did Germany actually raise defense expenditures to >2%, or merely commit to raising defense expenditures to > 2% for the upteenth time?
None of the countries you listed were OUT of “our arms”. They have been geopolitical allies for decades. Even the ones who’ve only just now applied for NATO membership. These are countries who contributed militarily and otherwise to our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with whom we’ve been holding regular war game training exercises, etc., etc., etc.. Hence, I find your claim that Putin pushed them “back into our arms” quite baffling, to put it understatedly.
Many were virtually liabilities rather than assets since their defense establishments were close to worthless. The US has tried for years to get them to make modest improvements in their militaries w/o success until the latest Russian invasion. I prefer allies who can fight their way out of a wet paper bag rather than ones who can only call on us for aid.
Just going through the motions of an election doesn’t make it meaningful. Even North Korea has elections. Does that mean North Korea has representative government?
That’s banning the political opinions of a significant portion of Ukrainian citizens. How is that democratic?
Well, the obvious answer to that question is no. A dictator can hold elections and guarantee that they win 98 percent of the vote.
I’m not arguing that Ukraine is a country that merely holds rigged elections. If I believed that, I wouldn’t call their government a representative government.
To be fair, Sweden and Finland officially joining NATO is a big deal – though perhaps more on paper than on ground. I know that Russia now has another NATO country on its Northern border, but most of that border is sparsely inhabited or uninhabited taiga.
What’s interesting is how the rest of the world (I know, I know, s-hole countries but nonetheless) is engaging (or not engaging) with the conflict. Using the UN General Assemby as a rough proxy:
The largest banned party had less than 10% of the seats in the parliament before the invasion and likely would poll much worse now. A number of their members of parliament have resigned from the party. The leader of the party is a traitor- even the Russians consider him one of their own and traded POWs for him. Of the parties that were in the top dozen in vote totals in the 2019 election, only 3 were banned and they accounted for 18% of the vote (and would get much, much less today). So not banning the opinions of a significant portion of their citizens- more like banning the Green Party in the USA- most of their voters will just move over to the Ukrainian equivalent of the Dems.
A democracy isn’t a suicide pact- you do not let foreign agents in your government. The US would never have let Nazis in Congress in 1942. Moreover, Zelensky’s bans were upheld by the Ukrainian Supreme Court- so it wasn’t a lawless move.
addendum- I failed to mention that a significant portion of the Party for Life (the largest banned party)vote was fraudulent. It got most of its vote in Russian held territory with the usual Russian respect for voting.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/kennan-cable-no-45-six-reasons-the-opposition-platform-won-eastern-ukraine
You seem to be taking an absolutist position regarding laws regulating the activities of political parties and then asserting that if a nation has any restrictions on political parties at all, the government is “authoritarian.”
You don’t seem to leave any room for the nuanced view that Ukraine, while it does have some restrictions on the ability of political parties to collaborate with a country that is waging war against Ukraine, should still be categorized as having a representative government.
Your method of analysis prevents you from understanding why nearly all of the European nations, Japan, South Korea, Canada, the United States and Australia are supporting Ukraine and have rejected Putin’s annexation of parts of Ukraine.
You can’t reach the conclusion that this has anything to do with representative government because you can’t accept that Ukraine has a representative government. It’s too bad you won’t take a more nuanced approach.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February did dramatically change public opinion in Finland and significantly in Sweden, in favor of NATO membership, where it had been very lukewarm prior to the February invasion.
Even after Russia took Crimia in 2014 public opinion in Sweden and Finland didn’t move enough to cause either country to apply for NATO membership.
Ah, very interesting. So, this was a vote held on March 2, 2022, according to this link.
Fair enough, though banning the opposition – and overthrowing an elected, albeit corrupt government (which preceded Zelensky) – are not great signs.
But I think the US would prosecute this regardless. Ukraine could be as democratic as Saudi Arabia (another US ally) and the US would still find this conflict in its interest.
I’m in agreement with the points made here by @mimac. We, America, is not at war or in armed conflict now, but we do have influential American citizens participating in meetings and forums held by the World Economic Forum advocating for one world government. Such advocacy favors an elimination of national sovereignty. How should our government deal with these threats to our sovereign existence? Should we start banning people so engaged?
Do you think that the political leaders of countries like Canada, Norway, Sweden, France, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Spain and Denmark view Ukraine as having a political system similar to that of Putin’s Russia?
Have you heard any of the political leaders of the countries I listed above say, “Ukraine is an authoritarian country?”
18% is a large proportion of the population, and you don’t know how much they would get today. Neither do I, of course, but consider: if they were really that unpopular Zelensky wouldn’t need to ban them. They would be irrelevant and he could keep his democratic cred without question.
That was an interesting read. Did you realise that the observer was talking about the vote in Zaporizhzhia? Which was (and still is) under Kiev’s control, it wasn’t being ruled by Russian proxies like the DPR. That’s the area where the opposition got a majority.
I also don’t know if the Ukrainian elections were actually held in DPR/LPR. I don’t think they were (meaning I think they had their own elections). Which means the significant vote for the pro-Russia parties was just from Kiev controlled areas, it leaves out the (we assume?) more pro-Russian regions of DPR/LPR/Crimea.
Because we’re US allies. If the US was supporting separatism we’d be supporting that. Cold truth.
Does banning people change minds? If a government bans people it’s because it doesn’t feel confident that it can defeat their ideas. It’s an admission of ideological weakness.