How does the war in Ukraine end?
Thinking about the election is depressing and anxiety provoking, so let’s focus on situation in Ukraine.
Progressive Democrats ask Biden to negotiate with Putin
This letter to Biden from some members of the progressive caucus is a big mistake, assuming the progressives want to save lives and prevent a genocidal Russian takeover of Ukraine. Putin is losing his war and may lose his grip on power and his life; his strategy is to drag the war out and hope that a cold winter in Europe and (especially) a Republican victory in the United States mid-term election reduces support for Ukraine while he rebuilds his battered army. He is also trying to deter weapons deliveries to Ukraine by threatening nuclear escalation.
If Putin wanted to negotiate in good faith it would not be hard for him to find willing partners, including the United States. The problem is that he does not have much reason to negotiate; at most he will agree to a cease fire to buy time to rebuild his army and consolidate his territorial gains. This would be unacceptable to Ukraine and should be unacceptable to us, given the genocide that would follow and the precedent that would be set. On the other hand, why would Putin agree to withdraw his troops prior to negotiations?
In this context the progressive letter is counterproductive because it signals a lack of resolve. It suggests that Americans are getting tired of the war. Having the United States push Ukraine to settle rather than sending them weapons is Putin’s only path to an outcome that is not a clear defeat.
The better approach is to authorize substantial economic and military aid to Ukraine during the lame duck session of Congress. Given Biden’s commitment to Ukraine, this will signal U.S. resolve to Putin. The biggest threat to Ukraine for months has been the pro-Putin faction of the Republican party. So far support for the war has remained relatively bipartisan but this could easily change.
My theory of the case: the revolution devours its parents
I think the congressional progressives know everything I just said. My theory is that they are pandering to the utopian blame-America-first segment of the democratic base. This is the problem with utopian know-it-all politics of the Jacobin sort. It sets up unrealistic expectations and creates an electorate that can never be satisfied. Couple that with our two-party political system and open primaries and even solid progressives need to worry about being outflanked on the “left”.
Genocidal talk on Russian state media
A couple of days ago a speaker on Russian state television went on a pro-genocide rant. (If you haven’t seen the clip, it’s worth taking a look.) The segment was translated by Julia Davis and went viral; it was so bad that the speaker has apparently been fired. But the genocidal talk on Russian television continues.
This is worrying on multiple levels. It no doubt encourages war crimes by the Russian army. It may box Putin in and make a negotiated settlement more difficult. Even worse, it may reflect or influence Putin’s actual beliefs. If this is true, the risk of a purely vindictive nuclear attack on Ukraine by a humiliated Putin/Russia rises. If you hate Ukrainians, and you are going to lose, why not take them down with you?
Will Putin use tactical nuclear weapons?
Most analysts believe that Putin is unlikely to use “tactical” nuclear weapons on Ukrainian targets. Although it is very difficult to predict how Russians, Ukrainians, and the world community would react to the use of nuclear weapons, there are many reasons to think the costs to Putin of using tactical nuclear weapons would far outweigh the benefits. There are also obstacles to the use of the weapons (risk of insubordination, delivery challenges, maintenance issues, etc.). A critical question is what Putin is hearing from China and India. (I wish they would make clear public statements to box themselves in to serious economic retaliation in response to a nuclear strike.)
Unfortunately, even if these commentators are correct, a low risk that Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons is not zero risk, especially if Putin feels that his grip on power is threatened.
Can the use of tactical nuclear weapons lead to nuclear Armageddon?
Yes. There is always a risk that things will spin out of control. Here is one account of how this can happen:
What is clear is that both sides have consistently escalated in Ukraine when they fear that they might lose. . . .
. . .
In taking these escalatory steps, both sides have also increased the domestic and geopolitical costs of compromise, thus increasing the incentive for further escalations. . . .
. . .
It is not hard to imagine how they might be starting from where we are today. If the war continues to move against the Russians, and particularly if the Ukrainians begin to invade Crimea, they will reach ever greater levels of fear that the future of the Russian regime is at stake. Some genius within the Russian leadership will then put forward the idea that they can reverse the momentum and demonstrate their greater willingness to accept Armageddon by a nuclear demonstration. As Michael Kofman and Anya Lukianov Fink have noted, Russian military analysts have long believed in “a demonstrative use of force, and could subsequently include nuclear use for demonstration purposes.” The West, this Russian optimist will argue, doesn’t really care about Ukraine and will recoil at the real prospect of nuclear war. Lacking better options, or really any other options at all beyond surrender, Russian President Vladmir Putin (or his successor) will seize on this deus ex machina. Such thin hopes of turning defeat into victory are the most effective enemies of peace.
. . .
The American equivalent of the Russian genius will argue that a direct, proportionate response aimed at the attack itself will send a signal to the Russian leadership that the United States is seeking to punish the crime of nuclear use, not escalate the war or overthrow the Russian regime. They will see the Russian strategic nuclear alert as a bluff, arguing that to follow through with a strategic nuclear attack would be suicide. Lacking better options, the U.S. leadership will seize on the idea of such a finely calibrated response and launch a conventional NATO attack on Russian troop formations in Ukraine or the military base in Russia where the Russian nuclear strike originated from. As a precaution, they will also put U.S. nuclear forces on alert, put more U.S. nuclear submarines to sea and recommend to the British and French that that they also put their forces on alert — if these two independent powers had not done so already.
Unfortunately, such a subtle message is likely to be lost on a paranoid Kremlin. . . .
The interests of the United States and Ukraine nonetheless remain imperfectly aligned
The risk of worldwide nuclear conflagration means that the interests of the United States and Ukraine are imperfectly aligned.
It is true that the risk of the world stumbling into nuclear Armageddon is increased by Ukrainian success on the battlefield. On the other hand, caving in to nuclear threats is potentially very destabilizing. It could encourage Russia, China, and perhaps other nuclear powers to invade their neighbors, and it would give many vulnerable countries an incentive to acquire nuclear weapons. This makes the overall effect of supporting Ukraine on the risk of nuclear conflagration ambiguous.
It may come down to Crimea
My guess is that the rubber will hit the road if Ukraine expels Russia from the Donbass and is in a position to invade Crimea. If there is any red line for Putin, that is likely to be it, and my hunch is that Biden will push Ukraine to leave Crimea (or perhaps just the naval base?) in Russian hands. My guess is also that Ukraine will cede Crimea to end the war and avoid the risk of a vindictive nuclear attack by Putin. So even here the conflict of interest between the United States and Ukraine may not be all that great.
I think you fell for the WaPo interpretation of the Progressive letter. Read Heather Cox Richardson’s Letter for a more sane take. WaPo sensationalist right-wing-loving gotcha got you
Well, it seems I made an error and have to go through my reads last night, so forget the ref to Richardson and I’ll dig the right one up
I ade an error citing Richardson, so I’ll go dig up the right ref
I was right, it’s simply towards the end https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/october-24-2022
It was imbecilic to ask Biden to do something that he, not to mention the rest of the world, has been trying to do since before the invasion. Erik is correct in saying “they are pandering to the utopian blame-America-first segment of the democratic base. This is the problem with utopian know-it-all politics of the Jacobin sort. It sets up unrealistic expectations and creates an electorate that can never be satisfied. “
Obviously this letter is not going to help Dem turnout in the election. There was no reason in the world for this letter.
It looks like a dirty trick
The Rectification of Names: October Surmise (yastreblyansky.blogspot.com)
The content of the letter itself, taken out of context, was not bad. They endorsed military and economic aid to Ukraine, recognized that achieving a negotiated solution would be difficult, seem to insist on a free and independent Ukraine. But they also wring their hands about the fiscal costs of the war and the hardship it is causing around the world, which suggests they are wobbly in support of Ukraine. And that is the problem, together with the implied criticism of Biden and the rest of the party in the run up to the election. What were they trying to achieve?
What were they trying to achieve?
“
An economic war that will deflate Russian oil market. Consider this!
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
the 10-year breakdown inflation rate is now 2.5%, but the Austrian Economics measure of inflation rate is now – 7%. the Austrian School measures inflation by the rate of expansion of the M2 money supply. at the present time M2 is shrinking by 7% per annum, in other words 7% deflation. this deflation is also shrinking the price of our equities. does it also predict that fed Governors will now pivot?
Help is on the
way
!
Not till the economy is far gone will the Fed let up.
Was there ever a more catastrophic decision than Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? There are no longer any good outcomes for Putin and Russia and nuclear Armageddon would clearly be the worst. I have not seen any recent reports on the effect of sanctions on the Russian economy and whether the Russian people will remain docile— with the exception of conscription— much longer. In other words is delay going to test the Russian resolve more than the West? Agree that China and India are potential keys to bringing the war to an end. As to the progressives, I tend to agree with much of their ideology, but they gain nothing by overplaying their hand except to let the media and GOP to suggest the bat poop crazies exist on both sides. They would be much further ahead to be explaining why the GOP policies have fueled inflation— Trump tax cuts, backing out of Iran nuclear deal thereby putting sanctions back on Iranian oil exports, Trump’s work with Saudi Arabia, and the lack of immigration solutions—than attacking the foreign policy of a Democrat administration and coming up with slogans like defunding the police and extinguishing ICE.
See my note above. The Progressives didn’t say what the news said they did
Carol:
I assume you are referring to this article by the Washington Post?
and a partial section of Prof. Heather’s commentary:
Very tired last night. I did not obtain a chance to read Prof. Heather’s commentary as I normally do. If you comment there, you would know me as “Bill H.”
It seems like the letter has been withdrawn.
Eric:
The 30 Representatives Letter? ““Dear Mr. President” Letter. Kind of hard to withdraw something in print, yes? What do you say afterwards? Oh. my assistants took the liberty of sending it on their own. Which is a reason why, it never should be in print.
Should we have the FBI confiscate phones and records at their homes? What else has been said and not revealed. Do you see where this is going?
The damage is done. Mea Culpa’s are not going to make it better or easier to take. Morons . . .
The letter writers are just covering their “we voted to send arms” butts.
And your statement:
If Putin wanted to negotiate in good faith it would not be hard for him to find willing partners, including the United States.
is so laughable. Thanks for a great joke. The USofA has not negotiated in good faith since before you were born.
Doug:
“The US of A has not negotiated in good faith since before you were born.”
If such is true, the same could be said of Russia too. Russia should be making the first move on this as they are getting beat by a second-rate country armed by us and willing to fight without us being there. Kind of unique when compared to the sixties and early seventies.
How does the war in Ukraine end?
It’s anybody’s guess at this point.
Maybe Russia explodes a dirty bomb in Ukraine and blames it on them.
And then it gets worse after that.
The State Dept. warns that ‘dirty bomb’ claims could be a pretext for Russian escalation.
NY Times – Oct 24
Joint US/UK/France statement
BTW, a “dirty bomb” is NOT a nuclear weapon, as such.
It’s just radioactive material packed around conventional explosives which when detonated would disperse harmful radioactive material in the blast area, harmful/deadly to all around.
radiological dispersal devices
“The Sum of All Fears.”
House progressives urge the Biden administration to engage in direct talks with Russia.
NY Times – Oct 24
Pretty soon it will only be (in the US) hard-core neocons who are supporting the plucky Ukrainians. Ugh.
Hmmm. “We agree with the administration’s perspective that it is not America’s place to pressure Ukraine’s government regarding sovereign decisions” …
Ukraine is adamant that they want Russia out of eastern Ukraine.
So it looks like US progressives are going to have to persuade the Zelinsky guv’mint to back off.
For the record,
Amid backlash, liberal House Democrats retract their call for Biden to seek a cease-fire in Ukraine
NY Times – Oct 25
One day after issuing a letter urging the administration to seek direct diplomatic talks with Russia aimed at forging a cease-fire, progressives withdrew that call, reflecting deepening divisions over the conflict.
Really?
‘Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, who led the letter, blamed unnamed aides for releasing it, saying that it had been drafted several months ago, “but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting.” …’
Eric Kramer
I want to say I agree witgh you entirely.
But the world be so complicated and all..
I hope Carol and Run and Prof Heather are right, and the press report of Progressives pressing for a negotiated settlement was just the normal press stupidity if not malice.
On the other hand, I am disposed to think of the Progressives as just like everyone else..persisting in what they have been saying for decades in spite of the changing circumstances. That would be “hate America first”, absolute pacifism at all costs, “can’t we all get along?” And I have been pretty much singing that song myself since 1960.
My first question is what would you “negotiate” with? A psychopath liar and murderer, who would count a “negotiated settlement” as a victory…giving him time to regroup, recalculate, and go for more?
At the least, the least, we can do is provide Ukraine with the arms it needs to obliterate the Russian war machine in Ukraine and that threatening it from inside Russia. If that provokes a nuclear war, we were going to get one eventually anyway, unless the Russians themselves decapitate Putin and his friends.
Progressive Democrats ask Biden to negotiate with Putin
The worst part about this thing is that if you google “Putin diplomacy talks NATO Biden” or something like that you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a story about this. So these imbeciles(in this instance) go public with a plea to do something that Biden and the rest of thee world have been trying to do since before the invasion.
Certainly not as bad as the left wing attacks on the ACA prior to the 2010 midterms, but the same kind of attack and from the same people. “Obama never wanted the public option!. The ACA sucks!” was a large part of the Dem massacre in those midterms.
“Biden does not want to try diplomacy!” is the same thing. Fortunately it has not gone on for all that long.
So we were all punked by a probably GOP-Putin dirty trick.
The Rectification of Names: October Surmise (yastreblyansky.blogspot.com)
I also see that the WaPo barely explains this likelihood, saying the “Progressives retract their letter.”
OH! Another “Dems in disarray!” story.
Thanks, WaPo
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a mistake is just a mistake:
The Progressive Caucus has now withdrawn the Ukraine letter in its entirety, saying it was the released by staff without vetting. “The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting,” writes Pramila Jayapal in a just released statement. “As Chair of the Caucus, I accept responsibility for this.” She goes on to say that the proximity in time to Rep. McCarthy’s threats to discontinue aid to Ukraine led to misunderstandings.
Having read the Twitter comments I need to say I am glad I am not like them…though I suspect I may look like them at times. They seem less interested in the policy than the politics. What they want is a hate-fest.
I disagreed with the “progressive’s” letter, and I disagreed with it when it was written four months ago or before it was written…back in February. While the Russians were conducting “routine exercises” on the Ukraine border, I thought the best response would have been to conduct our own routine exercises on the Ukraine side of the border, hopefully giving the Russians something to think about. When they crossed the border, my response ould have been to annihilate them as they crossed..i think it would have been easy as they would have been exposed and not yet organized for combat.
But Biden had a better plan than I did, and I said so. If arming the Ukrainians and imposing sanctions would have stopped the invasion, that would be better than risking calling an insane Putin’s bluff.
But as the war has gone on, I believe that the “fear of escalation” is just telling Putin that his threat (bluff?) is working, while extending the war, getting more people killed, Ukraine destroyed , and costing us more money and “the West” more suffering, while feeding the Neville Chamberlanes on both the Left and the Right. And giving the Russians time to learn some lessons, reorganize, and come back stronger and smarter. So I believe it is time to break out of the “fear of escalating” and give the Russians about 24 hours to get out of town before we either give the Ukrainians the tools to annihilate those still in Ukraine, and to eliminate any bases in Russia itself from which missiles or artillery shells are launched. Or, we, NATO or US unilaterally, should do it for them.
We can do it with no real risk to ourselves. The Russians have shown they are weak and stupid. That leaves the nuclear risk. But if we let ourselves be blackmailed by that, we will face it again and again… right now while Russia seems to be in a bit of internal turmoil is our best chance. Later Putin may be in full control and fully insane, or he may have been replaced by people who are more insane and less intelligent than he is: the risk of nuclear war increases as this is prolonged. The purely money costs of the war increase daily. It’s time to stop it the only way it will ever be stopped.
Carol,
I read your link to the “dirty tricks”. I see nothing there other than insinuations that this might have been a dirty trick. Seems it is just pulled out of the blue(to be nice about the source).
EMichael
sometimes insinuations are all we have to go on. do you really think the other guys are incapable of dirty tricks?
Of course not. But if it was a dirty trick why did the Dems not say that? They didn’t and it wasn’t.
EM
they might not have said it because there is no real evidence, but in politics that is not a reason to not insinuate it might be true especially if they let someone else do the insinuating. also they could be pretty sure making such a claim would backfire after the R’s put their spin on it.
personally, i don’t know and i don’t care. the whole idea of appeasement is wrong and always was.
and yes, the “progressives” have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot.
for what it’s worth
the cuban missile crisis was settled by negotiation and compromise. but Kruschev was no Putin. and Kennedy didn’t mention the compromise (pulling back some of our missiles from the Russian border) because that would not have played so well as Kennedy Faces Down the Russians
In hindsight, it seems likely that Russia put its missiles in Cuba because we put missiles into Turkey, under Eisenhower. Obviously (?), little was said during or after the ‘crisis’ that we agreed to pull our missiles out of Turkey.
… disaster was avoided when the U.S. agreed to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s (1894-1971) offer to remove the Cuban missiles in exchange for the U.S. promising not to invade Cuba. Kennedy also secretly agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey. …
Cuban Missile Crisis
JFK Library – Boston
Putin repeats unfounded accusations that the West has labeled disinformation.
NY Times – just in
the Russians now believe that Americans think they can launch a nuclear attack against Russia without a whole lot of reciprocal damage:
this is a long article, translated from the Russian, as to why we believe we can win a nuclear war..
if i were Putin, and i thought American leadership were planning a preemptive strike on Russia to end the war in the Ukraine, i would seriously be considering launching a first strike on Washington to take out those American leaders right now..
things are moving pretty fast…there’s a lot of stories on hypersonic missiles, which are maneuverable and fly at Mach 5 to Mach 10; Russia’s using them, we just tested a prototype off Virginia…these are today:
as is this:
rjs
the original “purpose” of the US nuclear capability was to deter Russian non-nuclear aggression in Europe following WW2.
that stopped making sense when the Russians got their own nuke. But by then it was too late to stop the mutually assured destruction mutual deference rationale
which only works as long as those with their fingers on the trigger are rational.
i hope the Russians are more rational than you seem to be “if I were a Russian.”
Let us hope that Putin is more rational than he said he was. ditto for our guys.. now that we are back to MAD.
on a related thread, I said I had no answer better than calling Putin’s bluff.
Now I think I do. I am pretty sure our guys have figured it out too.
But it all depends on Putin being saner than he pretends.
The Pentagon thinking has long lumped nuclear weapons in with chemical & biological ones, called it ‘a CBN threat’. They have tended to suggest that it might be necessary to respond to a biological attack (say) with nuclear weapons. The idea seems to be that if we announce it’s our strategy, then adversaries will take note and be careful not to trigger it.
BTW, that got really confusing when Iraq under Sadam Hussein supposedly had CBN weapons, and we behaved as if they were N when they were really ‘just’ C or B (nerve gas or anthrax). That was awfully stupid of us, or duplicitous.
dobbs,
well the mushroom cloud smoking gun bit was duplicitous. funny thing is I knew that at the time, but nobody in the Congress did. hmmm.
but i can’t remember Sadam announcing he was going to restore Kuwaitt as a rightful possesion of Iraq and nuke us if we interfered.
Life is so hard to figure out sometimes.
As I recall, Saddam Hussein had a huge cache of aluminum tubes that supposedly could be used to make the centrifuges needed to enrich uranium to be ‘weapons grade’.
However, the tubes were said to be the wrong size for such centrifuges. (The US knew this because we sold him the tubes.)
Anyway, when asked if he was intending to make nuclear weapons, he (supposedly) refused to deny it. The thinking later was that he had to continue to look like a ‘bad dude’ to stay in power. We got to use all this to our advantage, propaganda-wise. After all, he did go out of his way to conquer our friend Kuwait.
Dobbs
as I recall the US ambassador went out of her way to assure Saddam that the US considered what happened between him and Kuwaitt was not something the US was going to get involved in.
Saddam was a bad guy, but he was out of his league dealing with our bad guys.
Do I know any of that for sure? Nope.
When are you going to let us know what you have figured out that the rest of us are supposed to have figured out also?
I think Bush’s ambassador to Iraq was out-of-the loop.
He seemed to be fixated on his belief that SH had been out to assassinate his dad.
Fred
i don’t think the rest of you are supposed to have figured it out. I do think that what I think I have figured out is best kept to myself, but I am guessing, hoping, that our guys have figured it out too.
to ease your anxieties, I am not bragging about anything here or claiming credit for anything. just admitting really. that i may have been wrong with my earlier prescriptions.
The US is not going to launch a first-strike nuclear attack on anybody.
You have my word on this. (Except for the ‘CBN’ policy above.)
Seriously, we are just not going to do this, under any circumstances, almost (*).
Note however that this applies to ‘preemptive’ action. * Use of biological or chemical weapons may create exigent circumstances.
There will be no ‘first use’ by the US ever, otherwise.
MAD rules still apply, however.
Note: A so-called ‘dirty bomb’ must be considered a chemical weapon if not a nuclear one. (Experts do not consider DBs to be nuclear but they are seriously radioactive and thus ‘chemical’ weapons.) Use of such in a ‘false-flag’ op would be very risky.