- Reaction score
- 19,733
From an old friend.
I’m still trying to make sense of the disaster we witnessed Friday in the Oval Office. My perspective is influenced by the fact that my father was from Kyiv, the time I spent in Ukraine during a college student exchange program, and how I think this conflict might affect the balance of power.
This war is costly and not going well for either side with the possible silver lining that preventing a Putin takeover for 3-years is in itself success. The argument to continue funding Ukraine makes sense if you believe that Putin would not stop with Ukraine and has more ambitious plans to recapture former Soviet territory. There is no easy way to predict what Putin might do if he successfully annexes the territory he captured so far and most of the world never believed that he would mount a full-scale invasion in the first place. Most everyone thought he would stop after invading and annexing Crimea in 2014 - that sanctions were enough to contain his ambitions. That was not correct and he went on to start a full-scale war, the biggest conflict in Europe since WWII.
We can argue about whether Ukraine’s ambitions to join NATO and the EU helped provoke Putin or gave him an excuse. We can argue about whether the US should have done more during the Clinton, Bush and Obama years to build a diplomatic relationship with Putin versus regarding Russia as irrelevant after the Cold War. But that’s mostly water under the bridge and might only serve as a healthy reminder that strategic diplomacy and building alliances is the smartest way to prevent conflict. But at this point we have no reason to regard Putin as anything but a bad actor. If he was reasonable and persuadable at some point back when he was talking about joining NATO himself, that ship has sailed and now he is a brutal authoritarian. He stomps out opposition, kills reporters, enemies and dissidents, and does not honor agreements.
Remember that Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in 1994 based on a promise from Russia, US and UK to protect it. And after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, there were multiple Minsk Agreements to stop further conflict which Putin violated and then completely trashed when he mounted his invasion in 2022. After 3-years of war and the US having spent $120-180B in support of Ukraine (depending on the source), the conflict appears to be a stalemate with both sides showing a lot of stress and fatigue. Ukraine needs continued weapons support from the US and European allies to continue defending themselves while Russia increasingly relies on help from North Korea and China. That said, Russia’s economy appears to be impacted by the war and Putin is feeling the stress of the conflict having lost around 200,000 or more Russian lives. Some believe that his situation is not sustainable and that he is more motivated to negotiate. But Ukraine’s position is clearly not sustainable and in fact dire without continued assistance from the US and Europe.
Ending the conflict by conceding some territory to Russia is an option, but it’s important to realize that any deal struck with Russia sends a clear message to China about how we might handle a Taiwan invasion. And beyond Taiwan, land grabs and aggression from China are imminent. China is the bigger picture geopolitically and they also happen to share 2,600 miles of border with Russia - which might become a problem for Russia if China decides to expand. Regardless of how the ball bounces with China in coming years, they are watching this conflict closely to see what Putin can get away with and how the alliances shake out. In some ways the ideal outcome for the Ukraine conflict would be to negotiate a cease fire with minimal land concessions to Russia, thaw the relationship between US and Russia and strengthen our alliances across Europe and Asia. This is the time to strengthen our strategic alliances to help contain China’s ambitions and there is nothing wrong with trying to include Russia as an ally. The saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is true and it may come to pass soon that Russia is the enemy of our enemy, China.
But for now, Putin is the aggressor and instigator of this war who is testing his boundaries - and Lenin loved to say that if you push a bayonet and find mush, you keep pushing until you hit metal. The opportunity right now is to negotiate an end to the conflict from a position of strength without becoming mushy or an appeaser in the eyes of the aggressor. Taking Putin’s side in the conflict and demanding half of Ukraine’s mineral rights without any assurances of security or further assistance is an insult. It comes across as an opportunistic thuggish shakedown. I can see a point in getting repaid for US support through mineral rights and perhaps Russia will be less bold when US has direct economic interests to protect in Ukraine. But the right way to do this is by providing Ukraine security assurances in collaboration with our European allies and using leverage to curb Putin’s future ambitions. That does not prevent us from thawing our relationship with Putin and letting him save some face in the process - but there is no strategic reason or common sense in giving Putin the moral high ground on the war he started.
Putin seems elated by the 180-degree flip in narrative where Ukraine started the war, Zelensky is the dictator, and in the US refusing to join its allies in condemning Russia in the UN resolution. Putin now talks to Trump about doing a mineral deal of his own which starts to resemble the “non aggression” pact that Hitler struck with a naive Joseph Stalin right before WWII. In that deal, Germany and Russia were going to be buddies and divide Poland which is what they did. Stalin was so sure that Hitler was his buddy that he could not believe it when Hitler actually invaded Ukraine and almost made it to Moscow due to Stalin’s delayed response. We learned the hard way that appeasement and bromances don’t work so well with bad actors - but alliances, diplomacy and negotiating from strength do. And driving those negotiations with a moral compass is the way to pave a coherent path and preserve alliances. Moral high ground and self-interest do not have to conflict. By morally switching sides, abandoning our allies and instigating an opportunistic shakedown – our president is taking a dangerous and short-sighted approach. The people surrounding him and the rest of us need to help course correct his very misguided approach to diplomacy.
I think we could help end the war in a way that balances the following strategic and moral objectives; prevent future aggression from Putin, maintain the moral high ground, reinforce our alliances, help recover some of the money US spent on the war, and send a strong message to China about Taiwan and expansion in general. I recommend that Ukraine give up some or most of land currently under Russia’s control as part of the cease fire AND sign the mineral deal with strong language that refers to a “protected business alliance between US and Ukraine”. In other words, the mineral rights deal now has teeth with US committed to protecting its economic interests in Ukraine. The mineral rights would be considered a shared geographic business asset that spans the sovereign territory of Ukraine and will be protected. This can be a win-win for everyone if framed properly. US gets the minerals and revenue, Ukraine gets protection from the US, our allies continue to see us on the side of Ukraine, and Putin gets to save face and declare victory. Tying the mineral deal to language around “protecting our mutual business assets” is a way of offering security assurances without violating Putin’s red line of having Ukraine join NATO or the EU. It’s a softer way of saying “don’t mess with Ukraine because you will be messing with the US” without the direct humiliation Putin felt when the US and our European allies were courting Ukraine to join NATO and the EU. And Trump’s friendly relationship with Putin can help disarm him and allow Putin to frame this as a victory. Ukraine and our allies may push back on giving up territory to Putin but I don’t see any path to ending the war without giving up some land.
I’m still trying to make sense of the disaster we witnessed Friday in the Oval Office. My perspective is influenced by the fact that my father was from Kyiv, the time I spent in Ukraine during a college student exchange program, and how I think this conflict might affect the balance of power.
This war is costly and not going well for either side with the possible silver lining that preventing a Putin takeover for 3-years is in itself success. The argument to continue funding Ukraine makes sense if you believe that Putin would not stop with Ukraine and has more ambitious plans to recapture former Soviet territory. There is no easy way to predict what Putin might do if he successfully annexes the territory he captured so far and most of the world never believed that he would mount a full-scale invasion in the first place. Most everyone thought he would stop after invading and annexing Crimea in 2014 - that sanctions were enough to contain his ambitions. That was not correct and he went on to start a full-scale war, the biggest conflict in Europe since WWII.
We can argue about whether Ukraine’s ambitions to join NATO and the EU helped provoke Putin or gave him an excuse. We can argue about whether the US should have done more during the Clinton, Bush and Obama years to build a diplomatic relationship with Putin versus regarding Russia as irrelevant after the Cold War. But that’s mostly water under the bridge and might only serve as a healthy reminder that strategic diplomacy and building alliances is the smartest way to prevent conflict. But at this point we have no reason to regard Putin as anything but a bad actor. If he was reasonable and persuadable at some point back when he was talking about joining NATO himself, that ship has sailed and now he is a brutal authoritarian. He stomps out opposition, kills reporters, enemies and dissidents, and does not honor agreements.
Remember that Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in 1994 based on a promise from Russia, US and UK to protect it. And after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, there were multiple Minsk Agreements to stop further conflict which Putin violated and then completely trashed when he mounted his invasion in 2022. After 3-years of war and the US having spent $120-180B in support of Ukraine (depending on the source), the conflict appears to be a stalemate with both sides showing a lot of stress and fatigue. Ukraine needs continued weapons support from the US and European allies to continue defending themselves while Russia increasingly relies on help from North Korea and China. That said, Russia’s economy appears to be impacted by the war and Putin is feeling the stress of the conflict having lost around 200,000 or more Russian lives. Some believe that his situation is not sustainable and that he is more motivated to negotiate. But Ukraine’s position is clearly not sustainable and in fact dire without continued assistance from the US and Europe.
Ending the conflict by conceding some territory to Russia is an option, but it’s important to realize that any deal struck with Russia sends a clear message to China about how we might handle a Taiwan invasion. And beyond Taiwan, land grabs and aggression from China are imminent. China is the bigger picture geopolitically and they also happen to share 2,600 miles of border with Russia - which might become a problem for Russia if China decides to expand. Regardless of how the ball bounces with China in coming years, they are watching this conflict closely to see what Putin can get away with and how the alliances shake out. In some ways the ideal outcome for the Ukraine conflict would be to negotiate a cease fire with minimal land concessions to Russia, thaw the relationship between US and Russia and strengthen our alliances across Europe and Asia. This is the time to strengthen our strategic alliances to help contain China’s ambitions and there is nothing wrong with trying to include Russia as an ally. The saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is true and it may come to pass soon that Russia is the enemy of our enemy, China.
But for now, Putin is the aggressor and instigator of this war who is testing his boundaries - and Lenin loved to say that if you push a bayonet and find mush, you keep pushing until you hit metal. The opportunity right now is to negotiate an end to the conflict from a position of strength without becoming mushy or an appeaser in the eyes of the aggressor. Taking Putin’s side in the conflict and demanding half of Ukraine’s mineral rights without any assurances of security or further assistance is an insult. It comes across as an opportunistic thuggish shakedown. I can see a point in getting repaid for US support through mineral rights and perhaps Russia will be less bold when US has direct economic interests to protect in Ukraine. But the right way to do this is by providing Ukraine security assurances in collaboration with our European allies and using leverage to curb Putin’s future ambitions. That does not prevent us from thawing our relationship with Putin and letting him save some face in the process - but there is no strategic reason or common sense in giving Putin the moral high ground on the war he started.
Putin seems elated by the 180-degree flip in narrative where Ukraine started the war, Zelensky is the dictator, and in the US refusing to join its allies in condemning Russia in the UN resolution. Putin now talks to Trump about doing a mineral deal of his own which starts to resemble the “non aggression” pact that Hitler struck with a naive Joseph Stalin right before WWII. In that deal, Germany and Russia were going to be buddies and divide Poland which is what they did. Stalin was so sure that Hitler was his buddy that he could not believe it when Hitler actually invaded Ukraine and almost made it to Moscow due to Stalin’s delayed response. We learned the hard way that appeasement and bromances don’t work so well with bad actors - but alliances, diplomacy and negotiating from strength do. And driving those negotiations with a moral compass is the way to pave a coherent path and preserve alliances. Moral high ground and self-interest do not have to conflict. By morally switching sides, abandoning our allies and instigating an opportunistic shakedown – our president is taking a dangerous and short-sighted approach. The people surrounding him and the rest of us need to help course correct his very misguided approach to diplomacy.
I think we could help end the war in a way that balances the following strategic and moral objectives; prevent future aggression from Putin, maintain the moral high ground, reinforce our alliances, help recover some of the money US spent on the war, and send a strong message to China about Taiwan and expansion in general. I recommend that Ukraine give up some or most of land currently under Russia’s control as part of the cease fire AND sign the mineral deal with strong language that refers to a “protected business alliance between US and Ukraine”. In other words, the mineral rights deal now has teeth with US committed to protecting its economic interests in Ukraine. The mineral rights would be considered a shared geographic business asset that spans the sovereign territory of Ukraine and will be protected. This can be a win-win for everyone if framed properly. US gets the minerals and revenue, Ukraine gets protection from the US, our allies continue to see us on the side of Ukraine, and Putin gets to save face and declare victory. Tying the mineral deal to language around “protecting our mutual business assets” is a way of offering security assurances without violating Putin’s red line of having Ukraine join NATO or the EU. It’s a softer way of saying “don’t mess with Ukraine because you will be messing with the US” without the direct humiliation Putin felt when the US and our European allies were courting Ukraine to join NATO and the EU. And Trump’s friendly relationship with Putin can help disarm him and allow Putin to frame this as a victory. Ukraine and our allies may push back on giving up territory to Putin but I don’t see any path to ending the war without giving up some land.
