cbbass1 said:
golden sloth said:
prospeCt said:
~ from Bloomberg
https://worldnewsera.com/news/entrepreneurs/analysis-ukraines-allies-are-blundering-their-handling-of-putin/
"If Israel has a senior global strategist, he is Yehezkel Dror. As a professor at the Hebrew University, he has educated generations of Israeli leaders. Six prime ministers have consulted him on issues of war and peace. "Crazy States: A Counterconventional Strategic Problem," written while he was working at the Rand Corp. and published in 1971, awakened the world to the imminent threat posed by fanatical third-world regimes.
Israelis sometimes refer to Dror as the Israeli Henry Kissinger. Both fled the Nazis as boys. They share German as a first language, doctorates from Harvard and a very developed and often highly controversial brand of foreign policy realism.
For Dror, now in his mid-90s, realism has been largely missing from the West's game plan surrounding the war in Ukraine. In a recent interview conducted via email, he discussed what he views as Ukraine's missteps in its dealings with Russia and why he believes the US and its allies have been "1delusional" in their approach to the war. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Zev Chafets: Western governments seem increasingly convinced that Ukraine has a fighting chance to win this war. Is that how you see it?
Yehezkel Dror: No. I think President Zelenskiy is facing a Melian Dilemma.
Dror: In short, that the strong win and the weak lose. Twenty-five hundred years ago, Athenian generals presented the leaders of Melos with an ultimatum. 'Look the facts in the face and consider how you can save your city from destruction,' they said. 'The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.' The Melians felt they had the high moral ground and the support of a strong ally, Sparta. So, they refused to give in.
Chafets: That decision, as I recall, ended in the annihilation of Melos. I
assume that is not what you think will happen to Ukraine?
Dror: No. This war, like most wars, will end with no absolute winner. Both sides will lose. The question is which side loses more. Ukraine is fighting bravely. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has become a mass media hero. Western countries are condemning Russia and providing Kyiv with weapons and sanctions. But meanwhile, Ukraine is being partly devastated and depopulated. It is paying a very high price in blood and material, while Russia remains secure.
Chafets: The US and Europe view the war in Ukraine as a historical inflection point, in which maintaining post-World War II rules-based international order is at risk.
Dror: There is no "rules-based order," only a partly coordinated international system. There can be no breakdown of what does not really exist. And, although it is not popular to say so, Ukraine is not blameless in this conflict. President Zelenskiy failed to understand that the desire to join NATO posed what President Vladimir Putin saw as a serious strategic threat to Russia. In April 2019, Zelenskiy said he regarded Putin "as an enemy." In December 2021, he called for pre-emptive action against Russia. No one should have been surprised by the Russian invasion in February. Zelenskiy, who is an amateur at statecraft, was surprised and strategically blind.
Chafets: US intelligence foresaw the invasion and said so…
Dror: Yes, but it is hard for the West to grasp the depth of Russian strategic sensitivity to what happens in Ukraine. Russia has been invaded twice from the west, first by Napoleon and then by Germany in World War II. The German invasion was not a Clausewitzian "political war," but a war of total devastation, elimination and enslavement, with very high human and material costs for Russia. That is a major component of Russia's collective memory and military doctrine today. It does not want Western forces or Western allies on its border.
Chafets: The US and its allies do not appear to be moved by Russian fears, real or imagined. They frame the war as a battle between good and evil, democracy versus authoritarian dictatorship, progress against reaction.
Dror: This is delusional. There is no such thing as an inevitable "right side of history." Not very long ago, rule by royal dynasties was regarded as the right side of history. And today, this idea is not universally held. For example, China, a highly relevant player in the world, does not share it. It has a very long political tradition and feelings of superiority that enable it to laugh off such prevailing Western notions.
Chafets: Do you think Putin is also laughing?
Dror: No. Putin may well be stressed. Emotional name-calling, such as branding him as a war criminal and calling for a regime change in Moscow, may be morally and ethically correct and honorable, but it is also form of strategic madness. Russia is, and will remain, an indispensable major partner in the global arena. Attempting to turn it into a pariah state and making Putin persona non grata is an approach that could, under mounting stress, become suicidal.
Chafets: What do you suggest, then, surrender by Ukraine and its Western allies to Russian demands?
Dror: First, I suggest to stop feeding misery in Ukraine by adding weapons to the fire, especially aggressive weapons. The war will very likely end with neither side completely satisfied. But Ukraine, as the weaker side, will be less satisfied.
Chafets: They seem far from a settlement. Can one be imposed?
Dror: They need help. I propose that the US, China, the EU and India meet in a neutral venue such as Singapore. If they can reach an agreement, they could then press it on Putin and Zelenskiy.
Chafets: Does Israel have a place in this diplomacy?
Dror: Israel is in the American camp. It is dependent on the US and must accommodate its "suggestions." But it also has an interest in not demolishing its relations with Russia. That is the pragmatic policy that Prime Minister [Naftali] Bennett and Foreign Minister [Yair] Lapid are currently following,"
Dror is simply wrong. He seems to believe that Russia has the right to determine the policies of sovereign foreign countries. Russia does not, if you believe that you are wrong. He thinks Russia is secure, it is not. The economic sanctions are serious, and the war is causing Russia's its demographic collapse to be further exacerbated. Ukraine viewed Russia as an enemy once they illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, that is when the Ukraine identity was born and is completely the result of the russian belligerence.
Russia's weaknesses have also been exposed, it is a pathetic government with soldiers that dont trust their commanders (with good reason), that has been rotted by corruption, they lied to their country about why they invaded and fail to acknowledge the truth.
I keep seeing the the line that Ukraine should just give up to prevent themselves from being destroyed, but if they surrender they will be destroyed. Let's be honest, the Russians will erase Ukraine from history. Furthermore Russia has already killed itself by isolating itself from its markets.
Russia has no more right to determine the policies of sovereign foreign countries than the U.S. does -- which is how we got Putin in the first place.
The U.S. and the G7 refused to consider Gorbachev's proposal to turn post-collapse Russia into a Scandinavia-like social democracy. They told him that the only way he could get IMF loans, or any help from the G7, was to go full-right-wing Neoliberal, and put nearly their entire public sector up for auction. Gorbachev was forced out, and Boris Yeltsin was the one to usher in the new Neoliberal economy. The oligarchs bought up formerly public resources for pennies on the ruble, and turned them into massive fortunes.
Those oligarchs wanted someone who would ruthlessly protect their interests; someone who was willing to kill. They wanted their own Pinochet. The man they chose was Vladimir Putin.
No nation on Earth has been more inclined to determine the policies of sovereign foreign countries than the U.S. The hot mess that is Russia under Putin is a case study of the failures of Neoliberalism and overreach.
You're right that Russia's weaknesses have been exposed. That's why Putin is looking for an exit. Ukraine is ready for this war to be over, too, and they're looking for an exit. But the U.S. has its heart set on regime change in Russia, thinking that whoever comes in after Putin will be friendlier, somehow. I don't think it works that way.
The danger is that Putin lights up a nuke in Ukraine as invaders are storming his palace. Anyone who dismisses that risk is a fool, playing with fire in someone else's house.
Let's not have pretend that the decision makers from 30 years have the same knowledge as we have now. Let's also not pretend that Russia was in a good spot after the fall of the USSR. The country was collapsing and Russia returned to its historical norm, centralized power with an extreme authoritarian, supported by a small circle of rich 'haves' in a land with extreme wealth inequity. I fail to believe the decisions of American policy-makers in 1990 are responsible for Putin and where Russia is now thirty years later.
The Russian government has had free choice as well, and they are responsible for the outcomes of those decisions. All the best and brightest left the country because the Russian government chose to crack down on the smart creative different, and entrepreneurial types that question the current status quo, losing that invaluable talent is on Russian leadership. Allowing corruption to run rampant and destroy the old Soviet infrastructure is on Russia. Having their economy devolve into a 3rd world raw material export lead economy is on Russia. A lot of Russia's short-comings are of their own doing.
I agree that Putin wants an exit, but he wants an exit where he can claim victory, even if the objective obtained is different from the objectives he had at the beginning. To be able to claim victory, Ukraine would have to sacrifice something, something it should not have to give up. If I were Ukraine, the goal would be the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine, the acknowledgement from Russia of Donbass and Luhansk as being Ukrainian territory, and the return of the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula. In other words, if Russia makes a full withdrawal the war will be over, if Putin wants his exit, that is how he gets it, he is completely free to make that decision just as he was completely free to decide to invade in the first place. Surrendering Crimea, Donbass, or Luhansk will only embolden the bad actors to take the same actions again once they are strong enough to do so.
Anyone that thinks the Ukrainians won't stop until they are storming the palace at Moscow is wrong, and I would say it is more likely that nuclear war breaks out if the West stops supporting Ukraine. The Russians won't use nukes against Ukraine. If the West stops supporting Ukraine and Ukraine falls, Russia with then invade Moldova. Once Moldova is pacified, the next target would be one of the NATO countries (one of the baltics, Poland, or Romania), which would pull the US into a direct confrontation with Russia. Given the Russian performance against a substantially weaker Ukrainian foe, it is fair to say, NATO is heavily favored to obliterate the Russian army. Given that likely obliteration, Russia would opt to deploy nuclear weapons, therefore it would be best for Russia to either withdraw or never get past Ukraine.
