It is time to make Ukraine part of NATO and dispense with the charade of arms-length relations.
The war in Ukraine has been a pure crime from the start, founded on lies and imperialism of the most old-fashioned sort. The West has long shied from directly allying itself with Ukraine, because Ukraine is so physically and culturally close to Russia. So in deference to old ideas of neighborhoods, spheres of influence, and defensive buffers, and the like, we have respected that we might create a large mess by taking NATO so close up to Russia's borders and self-interest.
Well, the mess has happened, and not by our doing. Ukraine has on its own progressively rejected the Russian sphere over the last decade, and for a variety of very good reasons taken steps to become an independent, functional Western-aligned democracy. (Unlike, say, Belarus.) Russia has in response taken the most brutal approach to bullying- killing and maiming what they can not take by corruption, threats, and diplomacy. Ukraine has fought back valiantly, but will be trapped in an endless frozen / slogging conflict unless it gets definitive help from the West.
There are two endgames in sight. One is that Russia keeps up its attack, in an effort to destroy or at least hobble Ukraine, physically and politically, perhaps even genocidally. Russia at this point has taken the worst the West has to offer, and the best defense the Ukrainians have to offer. It has been beaten off partially, but far from completely. From what we have seen, Putin can, and probably intends to, keep up the pressure on Ukraine indefinitely. Ukraine would become another Chechnia or Syria. This is not a good end-game, either for Ukraine or for the future of international relations among civilized countries- a wolf stealing back an empire, sheep by sheep.
 |
| Current state of the war in Ukraine. |
Another endgame is that the US and allies intervene, make Ukraine peremptorily a member of NATO, join the fight, and definitively eject Russia from Ukrainian territory, including the Donbas and Crimea. Given what we have seen so far, this is for NATO a militarily achievable objective. These allies would naturally make it clear that attacking Russia proper is not our aim, though may be necessary if Russia attacks other NATO countries or persists in raining missiles / aircraft from across the border.
The major question is how Russia might choose to escalate / retaliate. It has threatened nuclear war, in not so many words. I think such a course is highly unlikely, since Russia is trying to build a historical legacy here, not destroy one, or destroy itself. Deterence still holds, on both sides. Not to mention the fact that Western bombs are much more likely to be actually operational, given what we have seen of the Russian military. Additionally, adding Ukraine to the NATO umbrella with its various explicit guarantees will provide that much more deterrence against a nuclear attack on Ukraine, arguably forestalling such a worst-case outcome, even given the madness at hand.
Far more likely would be an assortment of alternative spoiler activities, like increased cybercrime and perhaps attacks in space on our satellites, maybe a few potshots into Europe, at the Baltics, etc. Projection to other areas of the world is highly unlikely, given that Russia would have its hands full on its neighboring front, and will lose a great deal of military capability over time. All these are acceptable costs, I think, for the durable lesson a repulse of wanton criminality would teach both Russia and China.
On the other hand, we should never demonize Russia per se or bar its future entry into Europe, given a change of government and heart. Their main problem is Putin and his imperial / delusional / autocratic system, not the people at large. Just as Ukraine (barely) beat off Putin-style corruption in their political system, Russia could as well, some day, and durable peace in Europe depends entirely on this happening as soon as possible. Which will in turn be brought closer, the sooner Russia is definitively evicted from Ukraine.
Remember the first Iraq war? Iraq had invaded Kuwait to take over its oil fields, and generally to express its contempt and superiority, including a historical claim that it was not, actually, a separate country. The US argued that this was in intolerable violation of sovereign borders and international norms. But the motivation was really just about the oil, not to preserve the democratic government of Kuwait, of which there was none. Nor was there a pre-existing alliance, but rather we conjured one on the spot out of convenience, cobbled together out of our various friends and petro-clients. The current case for alliance with and defense of Ukraine is far more compelling.
As this post was going to press, an opinion piece appeared by Jeffrey Sachs, promoting negotiation. He sees the same destructive stalemate developing as outlined above, (as do many others), and his solution is for the West to offer one thing- a guarantee to Russia that Ukraine will not join NATO. In return, Russia would vacate Ukraine to pre-war boundaries. Some may recall Sachs as a key advisor of the post-Soviet transition, and exponent of rapid transitions to capitalism, i.e. shock therapy. While the approach produced a transition, it is commonly looked at, retrospectively, as excessively shocking, and conducive to the uncontrolled and corrupt disposition of assets that led directly to the wild west of the post-Soviet transition, rise of the oligarchs, and the ensuing kleptocracies, the worst of which is Russia itself. So the track record is not great. In the current case, it is hard to make out an actual negotiating position from what Sachs proposes. Russia is in Ukraine, certainly by this point, for far more than a promise -cross our hearts- that Ukraine stays out of NATO. It is clear that Putin's aim is to quash Ukrainian democracy and freedom, so that Russia will not have a peskly neighbor better off and better governed than itself. It wants another Belarus, either by decapitation or by decimation.
My proposal above would form, on the other hand, an actual negotiating position vis-a-vis Russia. The West would offer two options. The first is that Russia vacate Ukraine to the 2021 lines and stay out, and that Ukraine remains independent and outside NATO, at least for the time being, but without future assurances. The other is that we immediately ally NATO with Ukraine, join in force with air and land power, and push Russia out of the Donbas and also out of Crimea, forceably and permanently. Again, we would make it clear that while attacks into Russia might be necessary to gain airspace control and repel artillary, etc., the ultimate lines would be set in advance, and not go into Russian proper, pre-2013. This would be a productive negotiating position, capable of inducing Putin to think carefully about his options. Losing Crimea would be the fulcrum, as well as the prospect of rapid integration of Ukraine into NATO as its front-line state.
- Ukraine is a linch-pin.
- Why our tax filing system is so nuts.
- In case you were wondering whether Republicans have lost their minds.
- High gas prices are good, not bad.
- Climate policy is not cutting it. We need higher carbon taxes. And to preserve tropical forests.
- Let's keep Mars safe from humans.
