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
I don’t think it’s relevant to them.
Do you think leting spies in your government us a prudent course? How could Zelensky possibly brief the Ukrainian parliament on the progress of the war while Russian agents sat in the room?
That doesn’t answer my question.
There are doubtless Russian agents in the parliament right now. Banning political parties doesn’t change that.
Does parliament get secret tactical updates on the war? I doubt it.
Cold untruth, I think.
During the 2003 Iraq war, France and Germany publicly opposed the US led war.
When President Reagan ordered a US invasion of Grenada in 1983, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher spoke out against the US invasion.
You have got to be kidding me.
:-(
And they didn’t help, that’s true. Though they did help in the first Gulf War, right? Which also didn’t involve any democracies.
So what was the difference for them, in your opinion?
Um, sure.
No, that’s my opinion. Arguably there are a lot of geopolitical reasons to side with the US and against Russia for these countries, but Ukraine being a democracy isn’t one of them.
Why do you think the US is supporting Ukraine? What’s the US’ strategic objective here?
@mimac Why do you think the US is supporting Ukraine? What’s the US’ strategic objective here?
just a few…
1) we have a preexisting security guarantees to Ukraine. All should know our word is good. Biden threw away some of that in the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan- we can’t afford more doubts about our resolve.
2) ensuring the security of our allies in Europe. Putin has made similar claims about the legitimacy of some NATO countries as he has said about Ukraine. Russian officials have made threats against our allies. We have major treaty obligations in Europe.
3) the US has for over a century had a policy of preventing anyone nation from dominating Europe- and has good reasons to continue such a policy.
4) preventing the precedent of a country invading & absorbing another nation. Allowing such notions to grow is a recipe for a great deal of war.
5) Ukraine is a democracy that seeks integration into the West. Not a perfect democracy- but one that has made significant strides. You would only defend those as pure as the Virgin Mary- meaning we will have no allies. Ukraine not only has the right to choose its own course, they will be a good addition to NATO. Their military abilities are quite obvious- plus they add a great deal of strategic depth to NATO.
Can the US really achieve this without boots on the ground? Not suggesting that’s a good thing, just saying that resolve in funding doesn’t have the same weight as resolve in fighting.
Also – this Russia/Ukraine thing started in 2014, with Russia annexing Crimea and supporting separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk. There was a more limited response to that. What’s changed? Or should that earlier response, with the benefit of hindsight, been more muscular?
Yes.
Don’t you think that one country now dominates Europe?
We have a lot of countries invading each other across the world. Is the issue changing borders?
Most of us wouldn’t even have ourselves in that case. Which is why I think the “they’re a democracy” thing is more about domestic propaganda than anything else.
There are two issues there:
Ukraine would add strategic depth to NATO – or strategic reach, more accurately – but it comes with conflict. Which, I guess, is why NATO recently declined Ukraine’s emergency application. Is the current involvement in Ukraine a sort of NATO-lite option? With some benefits wrt weakening Russia but with a back door that avoids direct conflict with Russia that involves NATO (and Russian) soil? Do the referenda change this, for Russia, even if the West doesn’t recognise them?
Ukraine has the right to choose its own course – everybody does. Is that right absolute? And what about the same right for people in Donbas/Crimea? If we’re getting into morality, why does one artificial boundary matter but another artificial boundary not matter when it comes to this? I think the difference is power, but?
It looks like “our arms” means USA manufactured armaments rather than “our allies” ;)
Not at all true- European nations will typically use arms made in Europe. Tanks: Challengers, Leopards, LeClercs, Ariete . Self propelled artillery: Panzerhaubitze 2000, Cesears, Archers, Dana’s, Zuzannas etc. APCs- to many to bother listing. Many use jets made in Europe-Eurofighter, Rafaele, Gripen, or have coproduction agreements for the F-35
Was it too subtle?
Fascinating! I had never heard of this. Really enjoy geographic oddities and this is a new one for me.
I understand your position but all too many on the right actually think that we are motivated by greed in this situation- and subtle and nuance are not in their purview so I think clear declarations are needed.
Zafar – To answer the comment under your “surface issues”, you opened a Pandora’s Box with this post! ! I may need to create a new post to answer them!
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? I think you are not in the US – well I am….and a huge portion of our country does NOT feel the government is representing them -on so many levels.
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. You bring up sovereignty, yet this is the very thing under attack worldwide. Look at the newly elected leadership of Italy and Britain (no – not King Charles III). There is no more sovereignty really, according to NATO – Is this what Russia is concerned about?
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? There’s a doozy of a comment……….Think about that……. And you will understand who is in control.
But Russia remained standing, came alive, grew stronger and occupied its rightful place in the world… Many don’t get this -including me
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. You are quoting Putin here Zafar. I have yet to read his full speech. But here is the part of Pandora that I am hesitant to throw my betting chips fully in Ukraine’s court. I am half Ukrainian-half Polish. Is NATO representing democracy or is it true that re-sovereinization is the goal, with Ukraine a prized possession?
Having survived Ian, I’ve yet to read the comments. Ukraine’s first Lady was on 60 Minutes last night. The host asked painful questions – I teared up – her eyes did not even water. I’ll leave it there.
I’d be really interested in another take on this FSC. I look forward to your post. I will say that if self-determination and sovereignty are being undercut on the West itself, then it’s hard to see how or why NATO would fight for them anywhere else. So yes, imo it’s because Ukraine is seen as a useful geostrategic asset more than anything else, including the rights and needs of all that place’s inhabitants (Ukrainian, Russian, etc.).
I follow a podcast by Yasha Levine and his wife – called ‘The Russians’ – and his thing is about Weaponised Immigrants. He’s originally from Soviet Ukraine, and has a very iconoclastic, and somewhat cynical, view of the role migrants from ‘the other side’ come to play in national narratives.