Has Putin shown us his off ramp?
Putin is looking for an off ramp and has outlined his main terms.
In mid-March, it became clear that a full-blown Russian defeat in Ukraine was a real possibility. That possibility has grown in the past few weeks as the Russians have continued to perform shambolically in every way possible, and NATO has increased its military support for Ukraine. The scary open question was – and is – whether Russia would escalate in some fashion. There was speculation that Putin would declare a mobilization in his Victory Day speech, even though it is far from clear that a mobilization would be effective either militarily or politically.
In his speech yesterday, Putin did not declare a mobilization, or even lay the groundwork for one. Instead, he seemed to be laying the groundwork for a cease fire that would involve only rhetorical concessions from Ukraine and NATO. The key section:
Another punitive operation in Donbass, an invasion of our historic lands, including Crimea, was openly in the making. Kiev declared that it could attain nuclear weapons. The NATO bloc launched an active military build-up on the territories adjacent to us.
Thus, an absolutely unacceptable threat to us was steadily being created right on our borders. There was every indication that a clash with neo-Nazis and Banderites backed by the United States and their minions was unavoidable.
Let me repeat, we saw the military infrastructure being built up, hundreds of foreign advisors starting work, and regular supplies of cutting-edge weaponry being delivered from NATO countries. The threat grew every day.
Russia launched a pre-emptive strike at the aggression. It was a forced, timely and the only correct decision. A decision by a sovereign, strong and independent country.
Putin’s bottom line: Ukraine stays out of NATO, and Crimea remains in Russian hands (or perhaps he would even accept genuine self-determination for Crimea). NATO reiterates that its only concerns are defensive.
Putin will not be able to claim victory in a war of territorial conquest, but he can claim a victory in a defensive war against unprovoked aggression.
If this is right, we should allow Putin to save face and go home. We should not threaten him with prosecution (prosecuting others involved in war crimes is fine). As long as he remains in charge of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, deposing him is beyond our capability, and in any event his successor in the event of a collapse of his regime may be even worse than he is.
In the longer run, perhaps this catastrophic war will persuade Russians that their inclination towards authoritarianism is unjustified and they should work to rejoin democratic Europe. It will soon become clear that the consequences of isolation will be catastrophic for Russia. We should make clear that we would welcome them back into the democratic fold. Things could certainly go badly wrong, but after resisting any optimism on the war for weeks I really do see a path forward that is far from endless war and war crimes and totalitarian domination for Ukraine.
Eric:
“Perhaps,” is a big if. Russians lost the war at Kyiv. Russia retreated and left a trail of economic destruction to the Ukraine. It remains to be seen if they are satisfied in losing a war and destroying much of the Ukraine.
@run,
Not just economic destruction, but civilian atrocities the will be long remembered in Ukraine. The other question is whether the Russian oligarchs and military are satisfied with Putin’s failures.
Good morning Joel
If Putin has cancer, it may not be a question. He will die, big party, bury him in a concrete monument, and a new boss takes over. The question may be is who is next? You are right to worry about the players who have a stake in the war and success. Russia may not have a land locked sea.
Given what I read last night, we have a bigger issue than Russia with a renegade right wing court.
That pale considerably in the face of our changing atmosphere.
Ain’t watchin’ history unfold in painful slow-motion grand … !?
Ten Bears,
Briefly and not wanting to hijack Eric’s post, Yes to your question . . .
The operation in Ukraine has already been won. By Russia. Dombass ain’t going back to Ukraine. It’s Russian.
Thanks for posting, Vladimir.
It ain’t going back to Khazaria either. We know.
До свидания, толстый русский тролль
“we should allow Putin to save face and go home”
The Ukrainians might want to have some say in this.
War crimes. Rape. Executions.
Relocation to concentration camps.
Unconstrained killing of civilians.
Wanton destruction of property.
Reparations should be on the table. Repatriation of people relocated to Russia is essential. Prosecuting soldiers who committed war crimes will be difficult, but we should pursue it. Prosecution of Putin is not something he will agree to, so insisting on it means endless war and an increased risk of nuclear escalation if Putin feels threatened.
We should certainly respect the views of the Ukrainians, but remember that Zelensky has signaled a willingness to compromise along the lines I outlined above, and the United States has real national interests at stake here too. Right now our interests are fairly aligned with Ukraine’s, but Zelensky might go further than we would – remember the disagreement over a no fly zone and jet fighters.
Eric,
The Treaty of Versailles was a cautionary tale about war reparations. They were on the table because bankers in the US wanted British and French war debt to be repaid and Britain and France convinced Wilson that for them to pay off their debt to US then Germany needed to pay reparations. You know what Keynes thought of The Consequences of the Peace and as it turned out he was awfully correct in his assessment. OTOH, reparations might be the way to go if you want the Russian people to suffer for Putin’s arrogance until they can find a far worse leader to follow. Three cheers for Hitler, eh?
I do believe that Russians need a path to rejoin the international community. I think I posted about this previously – I am concerned that NATO countries will refuse to relent on sanctions.
Ron:
Yes, to your comment. You do not beat a country into submission after defeating them into surrendering. It leaves a festering residue. We paid twice.
To me, the “we should allow Putin to save face and go home” in exchange for Ukraine barred from NATO and Russia holding on to Crimea, seems like a highly doubtful end to this. Throw in the Black Sea coast east of Crimea connecting to Russia and demilitarizing the provinces that Russia recognized, or some other pretty sharp reduction in Ukraine authority there, maybe.
I didn’t mean to rule that out. It’s a negotiation. It’s far from clear Ukraine can recapture all the territory Russia has seized in the east, and even if it could Zelensky may be reluctant to continue the fighting.
The Ukrainians will not forget the atrocities, or the kidnappings. On the other side, ordinary Russians seem to support and exalt the torture and atrocities. Russian media is calling for genocide and extinction of the memory of Ukraine as anything but Russia territory, down to the elimination of the language itself.
Even if there can be a cessation of military hostilities before Ukraine is totally devastated, there will not be peace in Ukraine. A little more than one genocide (unsuccessful) per century is nothing to look forward to.
I agree that endless destruction, war and war crimes is a very possible outcome . . . all the more reason to use whatever leverage we have to push for the least bad resolution. That includes arming Ukraine, which I assumed but did not state explicitly.
JaneE,
There are two kinds of Russian media; the lying state-run kind and the honest independent media which was outlawed immediately after the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine. Putin is an either my way or over a decade in prison way kind of leader.
Eric Kramer
I hope you are right. Much as I hate to say it. Even at that, I am fairly sure that once Putin has a chance to reorganize and rebuild, he will be at it again.
My instinct is …. well, it would be pretty bloody, and mostly innocent people would get hurt. So probably the best hope is what you suggest. But then we need to start thinking, and doing, how to keep this from happening again.
A similar view, apparently, by the UK Defense Secretary:
I don’t see Vlad Putin ‘going gently into that good night’.
Hopefully he will though, avoiding use of those Russian nukes that are available to him.
As first users, our excuse was, after all, that it was not well understood by political types just how powerful those weapons would be. Of even greater concern is that those weapons were relatively less powerful ‘nuclear’ (atomic fission) ones, and that the current arsenal contains ‘thermonuclear’ ones employing nuclear fusion hundreds of times more powerful.
Don’t do it, Mr Putin.
He may not agree to go gently into the night now, but he’s getting older, one way or another Russia is in for a transition.
I don’t see anyway that Ukraine agrees to any sort of ceasefire without either their joining NATO (to get under the nuclear umbrella) or agreement by the Russians that Ukraine can ditch their accepting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and can develop nukes. The Ukrainians won’t trust crap statements of any sort coming out of Russian mouths after this aggression. They shouldn’t either. The Russians pledged to acknowledge the borders back three decades ago. They lied. They’ve been lying ever since. We know they’ll lie into the future. So, what does Russia want — a nuclear armed Ukraine or a Ukraine with nuclear guarantees from others against Russian aggression? It’s going to be one or the other.
There may be room to negotiate some kind of security guarantee that falls short of NATO membership – Zelensky floated this idea earlier.
A different perspective –
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/05/08/ukraine-alone-makes-biden-the-worst-us-president-in-a-long-time/
Ahistorical hysteria. The competition for worst POTUS in a long time is brutal. There are so many better choices than Ordinary Joe, a man of mere maudlin mediocrity in a vast field of idiots, sociopaths, and sycophants.
More to the point of Caitlin Johnstone though is that the politics of Putin appeasement pairs better with understated humble pie than it does with audaciously arrogant hyperbole. Aussies are not generally such whiners, but they do need stable trade relations with China, who buys by far the most of Australian iron ore. It never hurts to look behind the curtain to see who is pulling the strings, all the more so for one that claims to exposing the truth to bring an end to illusions. Smells like for profit prophet to me.
The only thing worse than them is us when we act just like them.
Anyone read the new Vindman appeal for the USA to do more? Just feels a little odd to me and I sort of guess Vindman still has good contacts in the Ukraine armed forces. If I understand him, he sees a need for continuous arms flows (unlimited?) and specifically seriously longer range weapons to attack more of Russia. I wonder what the actual military situation is for Ukraine at this time.
Russia’s grinding war
NY Times – May 12
NY Times: Finland and Sweden joining NATO would make them “part of the enemy,” Dmitry Polyanskiy, a deputy Russian ambassador to the U.N. said in an interview posted online Thursday. “If there are NATO detachments in these territories, these territories will become a target or possible target for a strike — in the same way that Russian territory becomes possible target for a strike the moment NATO detachments are introduced” nearby, he told the website UnHerd.
Why do Finland and Sweden appear headed toward swift NATO membership while Ukraine is not?
NY Times – May 12