Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 23
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not sure if we've talked about this lately, but do we have any thoughts on what should be done with the Russia-Ukraine war at this point? Seems like as good a time as any to consider grand strategy, with Trump soon to take office in the US.
It's a little surprising that it's still going. It seems pretty clear to me at this point that Russia / Putin has no intention of stopping anytime soon. The sanctions regime that has been put in place seems to have caused them to return to self-sufficiency as much as it has hurt them. I'm doubtful that further attempts to sanction them harder will have any greater effect. The Ukrainians seem to have had impressive determination, especially during the first few months, but they don't seem to have the practical ability to eject the Russian troops, even with extremely generous donations of Western arms. I'm doubtful that's possible at all without large-scale Western intervention. There's also the possibility of allowing them to make more deep strikes into Russia with longer-ranged weapons, but I'm doubtful that anything along those lines can hit hard enough to either seriously disrupt their logistics or their will to fight, at least not without, or maybe even with, so many high-end western arms that it's basically obvious it's the US striking them directly, with all of the potential consequences that could entail.
From the perspective of an American, it's felt for a while like maybe it's time to wind down this conflict, or at least our involvement in it, as far as providing arms and assistance. Are we really accomplishing anything but getting more Ukrainians killed to little effect? And okay yeah, Russia is not our friend, but it's probably only to the United States' benefit to push them so far.
Does anyone have any different opinions? Does anyone see any realistic potential of forcing Russia back without a large-scale escalation that I'm doubtful Americans will accept? The European powers may be more determined to push Russia back, but do they have much practical ability without the US?
I think the important question is how do you interpret things like the sabotage to various undersea cables in the Baltic, break-ins at Finnish water plants, GPS jamming, bombs on cargo planes, etc? Maybe what we've seen is the extent of Russia's capabilities, relatively minor annoyances or distractions that Russia knows won't cross the line and require retaliation. Or maybe it's the tip of the iceberg, tests of more comprehensive attack systems that Putin plans to one day deploy fully against the West. Does he see himself more as the great crusader who will reclaim Russia's lost glory, or as the vanguard who will be content merely holding the line against the West without giving up too much more?
If Putin eventually wants an escalated war, we'll get one, and if that's the case then it's in the West's interest to keep him fighting in Ukraine where he can spend his country's blood and treasure with minimal risk to the rest of us non-Ukrainians in the meantime. But he does seem to be signaling that he'd accept peace under Trump, suggesting that he wants to withdraw but what he really needs is the cover to maintain face. We'll see soon enough, I guess. But if the war in Ukraine ends, or at least gets downgraded to Russia vs just Ukraine, what does Putin do next? Do we enter together into a new era of peace, or does that just let him redirect his efforts to his next goal? And where will that be?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link