I think the main problem with this article is that it makes the implicit assumption that countries which exist today will exist forever. This is not necessarily the case. Not too long ago there was no such country called Ukraine, and it is entirely possible that one day it will again cease to exist if they and the Europeans continue to refuse to engage with the Russians. The same goes for the Baltic microstates as well.
When the author says:
They cannot lift themselves out of their geography and go elsewhere. Ukraine cannot be relocated to France. It must remain beside Russia. In that case, these countries need to find a way to build trust.
that last part is not entirely true, is it? It’s rather that they should find a way to build trust with Russia if they want to continue existing.
True, Ukraine cannot relocate to France…but it can disappear off the map if they are not careful. Many countries have disappeared off the map before throughout history, particularly if they found themselves next to a larger power, and some will undoubtedly do so again. Because history has not stopped no matter how much Mr. Fukuyama may wish it had.
The article claims that the Korean DMZ scenario may be the most likely, but in fact it isn’t. It’s one of the least likely because - and this really needs to be emphasized - there is no stalemate here. And Russia has made it clear that, in their view, such a scenario would be entirely unacceptable for Russia’s security.
Since the West showed with their duplicity over the first two Minsk ceasefire agreements, and then again at the Istanbul negotiations that they cannot be trusted to engage with Russia in good faith, the Russians have consistently repeated that there will be no Minsk 3 and no ceasefire before a real peace is negotiated.
When even a moron like Trump can see that Ukraine holds no cards in this, i am surprised to see an intelligent and normally very on point Marxist author like Vijay Prashad fail to recognize the real trajectory of this conflict. Why would Russia accept anything but a full and definitive settlement of the security problem when it can simply continue advancing until all that they want is achieved militarily anyway?
It is Europe that most desperately needs peace right now, because the longer this goes on, the closer the Russian border gets to Kiev and Lvov. Yet paradoxically it is the Europeans who are currently most fanatically opposed to peace. This is how stupid, how incompetent, and how completely divorced from reality our European ruling class is.
I agree, the elephant in the room is that this war isn’t going to go on forever. Ukrainian army is already on a brink of collapse, and US pulling aid will only accelerate that. Even if Europeans decided to join the war directly, it’s not going to make much of a difference. Russia has an experienced army of 1.5 million with well ironed out supply chains and logistics, while Europe can only field something like 20k troops into combat. It’s just not going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
That said, I agree with the rest of the points Prashad makes regarding the need for Europe to start pursuing diplomacy and figure out a security architecture with Russia as the only realistic way forward.
That said, I agree with the rest of the points Prashad makes regarding the need for Europe to start pursuing diplomacy and figure out a security architecture with Russia as the only realistic way forward.
Indeed. So do i. I was just pointing out the one glaring error that stuck out to me in this.
Why would Russia accept anything but a full and definitive settlement of the security problem when it can simply continue advancing until all that they want is achieved militarily anyway?
Just because they can does not mean they should. There are drawbacks in each and every resolution scenario, all of them clash with Russia’s desire for furthering their economic development.
I agree that Prashad is very mistaken, the Korean DMZ is the least likely scenario, imho fuck that shit. I also think Russia will achieve security on their western border whichever way it will go.
Of course. I’m not saying that there aren’t drawbacks for Russia to having to continue the war. Russia would obviously prefer a negotiated peace, for a number of different reasons. But they have other options to get what they want if that isn’t possible.
As for Russia’s economic development, i don’t see much pressure there. Russia has arguably benefited quite a lot from being forced to reorient their economy and become more self-reliant. The war has revitalized a lot of industry, inflation is under control and their economic growth is looking pretty healthy, especially compared with the dire situation we in the EU are in.
But they have other options to get what they want if that isn’t possible.
Totally agree.
The war has revitalized a lot of industry, inflation is under control and their economic growth is looking pretty healthy, especially compared with the dire situation we in the EU are in.
Agree, but it would be better still not to spend a shit ton of raw materials on fuel, shells, FABs, nitrocellulose etc and reorient or stockpile those too. Also, Russia still experiences demographic issues which go way back to WW2/Great Patriotic War. Even though the casualties are small compared to the AFU’s horrific losses, and they can absorb more, it’s still around 100K KIA and 400K wounded, not to mention the horrors of PTSD and stuff. There’s a reason they push for their “traditional values” reactionary bullshit. It’s better not to lose more people AND achieve all the SMO goals, it’s better to stop the slaughter.
it would be better still not to spend a shit ton of raw materials on fuel, shells, FABs, nitrocellulose etc and reorient or stockpile those too
Absolutely. Every dollar, euro, ruble or yuan spent on war and military is one that is not spent on social development and materially improving people’s lives. War burns up capital, both human and material. Sometimes this is precisely why capitalists start wars.
Russia still experiences demographic issues which go way back to WW2/Great Patriotic War
True, those issues exist, but i find that the impact of demographics can sometimes be a bit overstated. They are a factor but they aren’t the kind of certain doom that pro-natalists like to make it out to be. I don’t buy the demographic doomsaying when it comes to China and i don’t buy it when it comes to Russia either.
Besides, if one were to take a purely cynical view of this, one could argue that Russia has gained many times more people than it has lost in this conflict simply by taking in the population of the annexed Oblasts. And yes, this is simplistic because obviously only a small percentage of that population is suitable to replace the combat losses, but it’s still a non-negligible amount.
it’s better to stop the slaughter
It’s always better to stop people from dying in a conflict that didn’t need to happen. The fact that this is even happening at all is a monumental tragedy.
Why would Russia accept anything but a full and definitive settlement of the security problem when it can simply continue advancing until all that they want is achieved militarily anyway?
One reason: Russia (probably) does not want to occupy the whole of Ukraine. They certainly didn’t start the war with that aim, and the prospect of an indefinite stretch of legitimized Western-backed terror is real.
Most likely scenario imho. I think Russia will also hand-pick the next government in Ukraine, provide it with protection and keep a keen eye on further events in Ukraine. Also, Russia should make sure Nazism (Banderism et al.) in Ukraine is liquidated - full hog.
They certainly don’t want to occupy all of Ukraine, and that would not even be necessary for a militarily imposed peace. The Ukrainian state and military would collapse long before the Russians reached the western borders. I’m not saying that this is what should or will happen, but it’s what could happen if a deal isn’t reached. Unfortunately that will take longer and many more people will die in the meantime.
My bet is a demilitarized rump state.
Mine too. Not sure it makes much of a difference though. Either way there will need to be a decade or so of re-education in order to denazify Ukraine. And either way there will be terrorist attacks. But Russia has experience dealing with that sort of thing. They dealt with it after Chechnya.
And let’s be realistic, this isn’t the Ukraine of the 1940s and 50s where Stalin fought the stay-behind Nazi insurgency. Nor is it Afghanistan or Iraq. They don’t have the demographics or the social structures to sustain a prolonged insurgency, nor is the terrain particularly suitable for that with the exception of some parts of far western Ukraine.
I think the main problem with this article is that it makes the implicit assumption that countries which exist today will exist forever. This is not necessarily the case. Not too long ago there was no such country called Ukraine, and it is entirely possible that one day it will again cease to exist if they and the Europeans continue to refuse to engage with the Russians. The same goes for the Baltic microstates as well.
When the author says:
that last part is not entirely true, is it? It’s rather that they should find a way to build trust with Russia if they want to continue existing.
True, Ukraine cannot relocate to France…but it can disappear off the map if they are not careful. Many countries have disappeared off the map before throughout history, particularly if they found themselves next to a larger power, and some will undoubtedly do so again. Because history has not stopped no matter how much Mr. Fukuyama may wish it had.
The article claims that the Korean DMZ scenario may be the most likely, but in fact it isn’t. It’s one of the least likely because - and this really needs to be emphasized - there is no stalemate here. And Russia has made it clear that, in their view, such a scenario would be entirely unacceptable for Russia’s security.
Since the West showed with their duplicity over the first two Minsk ceasefire agreements, and then again at the Istanbul negotiations that they cannot be trusted to engage with Russia in good faith, the Russians have consistently repeated that there will be no Minsk 3 and no ceasefire before a real peace is negotiated.
When even a moron like Trump can see that Ukraine holds no cards in this, i am surprised to see an intelligent and normally very on point Marxist author like Vijay Prashad fail to recognize the real trajectory of this conflict. Why would Russia accept anything but a full and definitive settlement of the security problem when it can simply continue advancing until all that they want is achieved militarily anyway?
It is Europe that most desperately needs peace right now, because the longer this goes on, the closer the Russian border gets to Kiev and Lvov. Yet paradoxically it is the Europeans who are currently most fanatically opposed to peace. This is how stupid, how incompetent, and how completely divorced from reality our European ruling class is.
I agree, the elephant in the room is that this war isn’t going to go on forever. Ukrainian army is already on a brink of collapse, and US pulling aid will only accelerate that. Even if Europeans decided to join the war directly, it’s not going to make much of a difference. Russia has an experienced army of 1.5 million with well ironed out supply chains and logistics, while Europe can only field something like 20k troops into combat. It’s just not going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
That said, I agree with the rest of the points Prashad makes regarding the need for Europe to start pursuing diplomacy and figure out a security architecture with Russia as the only realistic way forward.
Indeed. So do i. I was just pointing out the one glaring error that stuck out to me in this.
yup, good callout
Just because they can does not mean they should. There are drawbacks in each and every resolution scenario, all of them clash with Russia’s desire for furthering their economic development.
I agree that Prashad is very mistaken, the Korean DMZ is the least likely scenario, imho fuck that shit. I also think Russia will achieve security on their western border whichever way it will go.
Of course. I’m not saying that there aren’t drawbacks for Russia to having to continue the war. Russia would obviously prefer a negotiated peace, for a number of different reasons. But they have other options to get what they want if that isn’t possible.
As for Russia’s economic development, i don’t see much pressure there. Russia has arguably benefited quite a lot from being forced to reorient their economy and become more self-reliant. The war has revitalized a lot of industry, inflation is under control and their economic growth is looking pretty healthy, especially compared with the dire situation we in the EU are in.
Totally agree.
Agree, but it would be better still not to spend a shit ton of raw materials on fuel, shells, FABs, nitrocellulose etc and reorient or stockpile those too. Also, Russia still experiences demographic issues which go way back to WW2/Great Patriotic War. Even though the casualties are small compared to the AFU’s horrific losses, and they can absorb more, it’s still around 100K KIA and 400K wounded, not to mention the horrors of PTSD and stuff. There’s a reason they push for their “traditional values” reactionary bullshit. It’s better not to lose more people AND achieve all the SMO goals, it’s better to stop the slaughter.
Absolutely. Every dollar, euro, ruble or yuan spent on war and military is one that is not spent on social development and materially improving people’s lives. War burns up capital, both human and material. Sometimes this is precisely why capitalists start wars.
True, those issues exist, but i find that the impact of demographics can sometimes be a bit overstated. They are a factor but they aren’t the kind of certain doom that pro-natalists like to make it out to be. I don’t buy the demographic doomsaying when it comes to China and i don’t buy it when it comes to Russia either.
Besides, if one were to take a purely cynical view of this, one could argue that Russia has gained many times more people than it has lost in this conflict simply by taking in the population of the annexed Oblasts. And yes, this is simplistic because obviously only a small percentage of that population is suitable to replace the combat losses, but it’s still a non-negligible amount.
It’s always better to stop people from dying in a conflict that didn’t need to happen. The fact that this is even happening at all is a monumental tragedy.
This is going to sound like circle-jerking, but I think we have achieved top “debate within the party”. Thanks for your analysis
Thank you for your excellent points as well!
One reason: Russia (probably) does not want to occupy the whole of Ukraine. They certainly didn’t start the war with that aim, and the prospect of an indefinite stretch of legitimized Western-backed terror is real.
My bet is a demilitarized rump state.
Most likely scenario imho. I think Russia will also hand-pick the next government in Ukraine, provide it with protection and keep a keen eye on further events in Ukraine. Also, Russia should make sure Nazism (Banderism et al.) in Ukraine is liquidated - full hog.
They certainly don’t want to occupy all of Ukraine, and that would not even be necessary for a militarily imposed peace. The Ukrainian state and military would collapse long before the Russians reached the western borders. I’m not saying that this is what should or will happen, but it’s what could happen if a deal isn’t reached. Unfortunately that will take longer and many more people will die in the meantime.
Mine too. Not sure it makes much of a difference though. Either way there will need to be a decade or so of re-education in order to denazify Ukraine. And either way there will be terrorist attacks. But Russia has experience dealing with that sort of thing. They dealt with it after Chechnya.
And let’s be realistic, this isn’t the Ukraine of the 1940s and 50s where Stalin fought the stay-behind Nazi insurgency. Nor is it Afghanistan or Iraq. They don’t have the demographics or the social structures to sustain a prolonged insurgency, nor is the terrain particularly suitable for that with the exception of some parts of far western Ukraine.