The Strategy of Wishful Thinking
A few thoughts on why hoping does not necessarily make it so
At the risk of being a Johnny One-Note, I am going to continue with my thoughts on Ukraine. Geoffrey Roberts, Emeritus Professor of History at University College Cork and a member of the Royal Irish Academy wrote a powerful article, published recently in Brave New Europe. He presents ten excellent reasons why Ukraine should negotiate now, rather than capitulate later. Any one of them is reason enough. They are:
The Worsening Situation. Simply put, the weaker Ukraine becomes the less incentive Russia has to negotiate, rather than impose a settlement.
Averting Armageddon. Western leaders seem non-plussed to the dangers of nuclear escalation. They are great fools. Restraint in this area is a show of strength, not weakness.
Saving Odessa. Ukraine acts as if it wants to lose Odessa. If Ukraine collapses, why would Russia not absorb this historically Russian city?
De-Railing Demographic Decline. Ukraine is set to lose half of its pre-war population, either by death or immigration, and this worsens as time goes on. Why would the diaspora return to a decimated husk of a country.
Reclaiming Sovereignty. Ukraine is currently a straight-out U.S. dependency. Is this really the independence they have striven for?
Beating Trump. A peace solution before November would help Biden, and he is going to need all the help he can get.
Regime-Changing. Public opinion is shifting in Ukraine. Zelensky’s regime will be ended by peace.
Getting Russia to Pay. A recovering postwar Ukraine could serve Russia’s purposes, resulting in guarantees of cheap energy as before.
Joining NATO and the EU. Peace between Russia and Ukraine could kick-start discussions about the establishment of pan-European security structures that would obviate the need for NATO.
“Ukrainianisation”. A form of ‘Finlandisation’. In return for a friendly foreign policy Moscow allowed the Finns freedom of action in their domestic affairs.
Of course, none of this will be considered in the least by Western leaders. No one wants to engage in realism. They prefer abstractions. A commitment to Democracy (a word fast losing any real meaning) keeps the war machine and the American economy churning along nicely. The daily horrific fatalities from the front—the loss of a generation—are merely inconvenient details that should not detract from the larger picture.
And so, they chatter on. Within the last few days, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has spoken in terms of Ukrainian victory. Zelensky—an energizer bunny of a leader, darting around the globe, from Singapore to Taipei to Normandy to Berlin to Riyahd to Bari, anyplace but Kiev—speaks of the rebuilding of Ukraine after Putin has been defeated. In fact, he enacted a law that actually makes it illegal to negoitiate with Vladimir Putin. So, the policy we are pursuing through our Ukrainian proxies is two-fold: first, the overthrow of Putin himself, then victory and restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders. At that point, a humbled Russia, through reparations, would pay for the rebuilding of a triumphant Ukraine. That’s a bit of a tall order, don’t you think? Certainly more ambitious than any of our previous overseas military engagements since 1945, none of which, I might add, have been crowned with success..
As we used to say, “What are they smoking?” They cannot be serious. Surely, this is just rhetoric to try to get President Biden past November. It might be a good exercise to calculate the last time in history that Russia was subdued. They were humiliated by Japan and the West in 1905, but only that. The Germans had certainly advanced into Russia in 1917, but then so had Napoleon. The Brest-Lvosk Treaty was simply the newly-empowered Bolsheviks cutting their losses so that they could get with their Great Project. Afghanistan in the 1980s was merely a strategic blunder. In short, we have to go back to the Golden Horde of the 14th century for any real conquest and defeat of Russia.
Maybe we are like Great Britain in the Seven Years War, determined to pull out all the stops, to spare no expense, to gain mastery over France. Of course, these Great Power moves take on a different complexion in the nuclear age. And we foolishly think that Putin is merely a dictator presiding over a country whose citizens are yearning to be free of his yoke. All evidence points to the fact that the Russians are solidly behind their leader in this existensial struggle. So, any fight we start will not be with Putin, but with Russia. That should give us pause.
But has anyone been paying attention to the actual conflict? Today, I saw a CNN promotional clip in which the talking-head addressed her guest with the question, in dead seriousness: “Do you think Putin is winning the war?” I hope that was not a contemporary clip—it is more suited for early 2023, at latest. The Russians, quite simply, have been winning the war, and are winning the war, and there is no reason to think that they won’t continue to do so. They don’t do it the way we do, no “Shock and Awe” silliness; but a slow, patient, methodical grinding attrition. I check the frontline maps every day. Even the Kagan/Nuland map cannot deny the obvious.
Vladimir Putin hardly appears to be “on the ropes.” Instead, he goes from strength to strength, you might say: a highly significant cementing of ties with China, the hosting of the incredible St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, and now preparing for the BRICS meeting, which if anybody in the West would care to notice, has a line stretched around the block, waiting to get it. Turkiye and Serbia have dropped any EU aspirations (which were never going to happen anyway) and are getting in line for BRICS. Thailand wants in. Thailand?
If you were to believe our rhetoric—pick a foreign policy speech by most any of our politicos of either stripe—then you would have to conclude that the rest of the world just loves them some Tyranny. They are sure beating down the door to get to it. Please, Mr. Putin, can we have some Tyranny and Oppression? Please?
Of course, this is silly. We are silly. For much of the rest of the world—those countries who still have some independence of action—know the difference between the words we say and the reality of what we do. We say Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty. They hear Rules-based International Order, Sanctions, and Forever Wars. They know what lies behind our rhetoric and want no part of it.
I am in currently in South Korea, watching GCTN, a Chinese English language BBC/CNN sort of channel: world news—real world news—from a Chinese perspective. I am here to say: We have no idea. We have no idea. I try to keep these pages clean here, but you have my permission to insert your favorite f-adjective between “no” and “idea.” I have been introduced to a new word: complementarity. This is how the Chinese speak of other nations with whom they cultivate ties and trade. It would stick in the throat of an American spokesperson.
Meanwhile, the farce continues. Zelensky addressed the German Bundestag. He is a performer by profession, in short, a comedian, and his schtick does not appeal to me. So, I do not pay much attention to his public statements. But he did say one thing that caught my eye. He said, “The time for compromise is over.” Whoa-ho. When did it ever start, once Boris Johnson busted up the Isantbul accord in the Spring of 2022? There have been no overtures towards compromise, nothing other than that Putin must be defeated. How does Zelensky propose to do this?
He and Biden have just signed a 10-year security agreement, tying us ever more firmly to this rock; one, I might add, which the ship of Western hegemony will eventually bust upon and sink. This weekend, the farcical Peace Summit convenes in Switzerland; a meeting where the victor in the war is particularly excluded. But no matter, it will provide Zelensky a few more days away from Kiev, and a platform for the usual pronouncements.
There are voices of dissent. Orban’s Hungary (characterized as a right-wing totalitarian government in nearly all U.S. media outlets)) is one consistant voice for reason and peace. Slovakia is like minded. Opposition leaders in Germany refused to attend Zelensky’s performance. And, does Macron really represent French sentiment? I think not.
So, there is some reason for hope here (unlike the situation in Gaza). The choice is not between Right or Left, but between Truth and Falsehood. I have to believe that Reality, not Ideology, will prevail.