Ukraine War Solution?
The Economist magazine's practical idea followed by impractical solution
The Economist published an article this week stating that “If Ukraine and its Western backers are to win, they must first have the courage to admit they are losing.” The statement is a headline grabbing statement, but it is more than just “click bait” as it is based on some hard realities that should not be denied or glossed over.
The cited reasons for Ukraine losing:
Ukraine is in a war of attrition with an enemy that has four times its population
Ukraine forces are struggling under the Russian offensive around Pokrovsk in eastern Ukraine. This is the central Ukrainian supply and logistics hub in eastern Ukraine and its loss will mean the most likely require a retreat from a significant part of eastern Ukraine because without supplies the positions will be untenable.
Russia has destroyed 70% of the Ukrainian power grid requiring up to a 16-hour daily blackout period as the winter is coming.
The author added that war fatigue is taking place in Ukraine, and Germany and France, the European Union’s biggest economies, are under political pressure largely due to opposition or at least questions about support of the war. The U.S. is also in an election where support over Ukraine is an issue, though not the primary issue in the election.
The war aims of the Ukraine government is to take back all of the pre-1991 territory and though it is certainly understandable, it is beyond the capability of the Ukraine armed forces, even if granted unlimited amounts of conventional munitions from the West. This is a political reality that the government is unwilling to accept.
The author states that Ukraine and its benefactors need to accept these grim truths and then re-calibrate what victory for Ukraine would be. Victory should be defined by stating to the Ukraine people that Russia attacked Ukraine to keep it from being a prosperous Western leaning democracy and therefore its continued existence of aligning to the West is a victory in itself, and the lost territory is an aspiration but no longer the war aim.
This suggestion “flips the script” on Russia which states that the West’s aggressive support of Ukraine and its sanctions is an attempt by the West to destroy Russia and its culture. So not really a novel suggestion, but it is the way for a realistic Ukraine victory that would clear the way for peace that Ukraine could accept and still considered to have “won” the war.
The suggestion also means that Ukraine must be aligned with the West and have a vibrant democracy and aligned with the West economically. This might be possible because pre-war Ukraine was often caught in the middle between Russia and the West over power politics to have their friendly factions lead Ukraine. This will not be an issue going forward as Ukraine will never align itself to Russia or Russia friendly politicians at the national level for at least a generation.
The author stated that once this new view of what victory will be, then the West must be committed to the new Ukraine victory goal and provide it all it needs for its survival. This is where the impractical parts of his argument begin.
First, the article states that the West must provide Ukraine with all the long-range weapons that it needs and allow it to strike freely deep into Russia as it chooses. This is understandable militarily, but this does risk a red line with Russia. There have been plenty of red lines that Russia has threatened and have not done anything about, but there is that risk.
Second is to support a domestic arms industry in Ukraine so that it can make the weapons it needs and at a lower price than the cost of Western weapons. This ignores the earlier issue of the power grid being so badly damaged. How can Ukraine support a domestic arm industry under this condition? This makes post war sense, but not while still being subjected to a badly damaged infrastructure.
Third is that Ukraine must be granted NATO membership immediately even if it is at war. The author argues that NATO can make a carve out that it does not include occupied Ukraine for Article 5 consideration. Despite how logical the author’s argument is, it is not realistic as NATO membership has specific criteria, and even if the criteria are changed, there is still unanimous consent of all 32 member nations is required. This will not happen!
This is the problem with mainstream media proselytizing is that they do not give the reader the obvious truth when trying to act intelligent when it views it is communicating with what it views as the lowly prolls of society. The redefining of victory for Ukraine is, was a good and admirable step, and based in actual realities, but the solutions to support that victory was nothing more than deception or ill researched realities around the Ukraine War.
The result was a solid argument followed by an extraordinarily weak solution that was so ill thought out that it corrupted the entire article. This war is a serious issue, and peace is hard and glossing over any part of the argument does its audience
a disservice. It is another case of media malpractice to its readers.