Thoughts on Ukraine

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

I am pleased to report that recovery from my fractured hip has progressed well. I graduated from walker to cane a bit ahead of schedule and really need the cane only when walking the dog (the very activity that led to my misadventure in January). While physical therapy continues, it is no longer an excuse for the silence of this blog. Rather, I have been silent because it has been difficult to focus on anything other than the war in Ukraine, and that complex set of problems has been the subject of a tsunami of comment and analysis by others. Nevertheless, I finally concluded that I could no longer resist offering my own tentative thoughts.

The quote from Dickens came to mind because of what we continue to watch—the awe inspiring alongside the horrific—and the path ahead that carries possibilities of exceptional promise and extraordinary peril.

The West and much of the world has been transfixed by the astonishing courage, resilience and determination of the Ukrainian people. Who among us has not shared the instinct expressed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963 in a beleaguered Berlin at the height of the Cold War?

Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was civis romanus sum [“I am a Roman citizen”]. Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Ich bin ein Berliner!”… All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner!”

Over the past weeks, many of us would have been proud to say “I am a Ukrainian.”

At the same time, the surprising capability of the Ukrainian military and armed civilian volunteers has been magnified by the remarkable ineptitude of the Russian Army. Military experts have been kept busy, night after night on cable television, pointing out stunning deficiencies in strategy, logistics, and tactics.

Off the battlefield, it has also been inspiring to see the European response, providing military support for Ukraine from NATO and economic sanctions from the European Union. The unity, scope and effectiveness of the response has been something that few would have predicted. The European actions, joined by other democratic countries around the world, have shown that democracy is not as moribund as some had supposed. Indeed, if those actions are carried through to to a convincing defeat for Putin, it may provide a compelling impetus to strengthen democracy as a global force. Finally, much of the Western unity can be credited to the diplomatic efforts of President Biden and his administration in a welcome display of new-found competence.

And yet…despite all that good news, the situation is dire. When Russians have been unable to capture cities, they have sought to reduce to them rubble, with special attention, it seems, given to attacks on civilian populations in residential areas, schools and hospitals. Thousands of Ukrainians have been tragically killed or wounded and many more thousands have been forced to become refugees. Moreover, if it appears that Russia has been forced into a stalemate, or is even losing the war, it may be inevitable for Putin to order Russian attacks that are even more desperate, more vicious, and more dangerous. While use of chemical weapons, or low yield nuclear weapons is only a matter of speculation so far, it is speculation that can hardly be dismissed as groundless. Put another way, it is difficult to imagine what Putin would not do in order to avoid the humiliation of an obvious defeat in Ukraine. And the more reckless his actions become, the greater the danger of a wider conflict with NATO and the United States that could spiral into a full-scale nuclear conflict. It may be that the odds of such a development are quite small, but even a small chance of a global catastrophe must be taken seriously.

Under those circumstances, there are compelling reasons for all parties, not only Russia and Ukraine, but NATO and the United States to seek some settlement of the conflict. From Russia’s perspective, a settlement would allow it to escape the crippling sanctions that have already done severe damage to its economy and, over time, will do much more. It would also give Russia a path to shed the ignominy of a global pariah that it has earned from its unprovoked invasion and the criminal tactics it has used in prosecuting the war. A settlement would also end the drain of personnel and equipment from its hapless army. (Estimates of Russian military casualties vary, but by any count, vastly exceed the casualties sustained by the United States in its lengthy engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan.) Finally, for Putin personally, it would eliminate the possibility of his war becoming a burden heavy enough and unpopular enough to result in his ouster.

For Ukraine and its allies, a settlement would bring an end to the bloody devastation of the country and its people. That huge sacrifice might be justified if it led to a truly successful conclusion—expulsion of Russia from all of Ukraine. But such a conclusion is far from certain, and cannot be said with any confidence to be likely—indeed, it seems quite unlikely as to the areas controlled by Russia before the invasion, either directly (Crimea) or indirectly (the portion of the Donbas held by separatists).

There are those who argue that the only satisfactory conclusion to the war is one that punishes Putin, because punishment is not only well deserved, but necessary to deter him (and possibly other autocrats) from future aggressions. There is much to be said for that argument. But while it resonates with my heart, my head suggests otherwise. I fear that it overestimates the chances of success, and underestimates the risks, in pursuing a punitive outcome. On the other hand, I doubt that any settlement that preserves the Zelensky government in power—as it must—will be viewed by Putin or anyone else as a victory for Putin. Moreover the inadequacies of the Russian Army, and the cost of the sanctions imposed by the West would be a strong deterrent to Putin going forward.

In any case, whatever view one has of settlement, and what terms might be acceptable, it seems peculiar that we and NATO do not appear to have any involvement in the ongoing negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Those negotiations have been the subject of various conflicting reports as to positions taken and prospects of success. A March 18 headline in the Washington Post made the troublesome observation, “Mixed signals from Ukraine’s president and his aides leave West confused about his endgame.” I have seen nothing since then to indicate that the confusion of the West has been dispelled, much less that the West itself has a coherent view of an endgame, or that it has significant input into the negotiations.

The ultimate call with respect to a settlement must lie with Ukraine. Nevertheless, we and our European allies have strong interests at stake. And, in supporting Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in military equipment, we surely have a place, if not at the table, not far from it, and deserve to be kept closely informed as to the state of play. The diplomacy of Biden and his administration has achieved remarkable results, but the most difficult challenges are at hand.