Last night until I went to bed and then, apparently, into the small hours based on what I saw when I checked back in this morning a number of you engaged with commenter topclimber regarding his question for me. I also watched topclimber move the goal posts over and over. I was just going to put a note at the start of tonight’s post saying: DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!!!! without specifically calling anyone out. But given Russia’s attacks on Ukraine today, I’m going to answer the comment in good faith. And that is going to be tonight’s post.
Here is the question:
Adam, you deserve great credit for your daily updates. They are comprehensive and most informative.
That being said, I must say you seem to have a blind spot when it comes to diplomatic solutions to the Ukraine War. You may well be right in terms of the overall war–perhaps only a decisive Ukrainian victory will lead to peace, although how this happens without a drawn out flushing of all Russian troops from the country is hard to understand. And how that in turn happens without more megabillions of collateral damage to the Ukrainian economy and without the negative consequences of an extended Ukrainian diaspora is harder still to see.
Rather than engage on the larger issue, I want to focus on a diplomatic solution to the blockade of Ukrainian wheat exports. The two options you put forth are basically aquatic versions of a no-fly zone–i.e. a solution posited on Western military might. This is exactly the approach that, based on prior US adventurism, sours the global South on our leadership.
What I am driving at is that a solution that involved non-Western/Russian powers–perhaps led by China, India,leading African and Middle Eastern countries–might actually have chance to work. These are the folks most likely to suffer from the direct or indirect effects of keeping Ukrainian exports off the market. The US would be better served by promoting efforts of such nations than trying to force its own solution.
Perhaps you have made this point elsewhere. If so, my apologies. If not, why not?
I’ve answered this both in whole and in parts before, but a lot of that is currently unavailable until those working on it figure out how to reintegrate our archives back into the site. So let me take this one bit at a time:
That being said, I must say you seem to have a blind spot when it comes to diplomatic solutions to the Ukraine War. You may well be right in terms of the overall war–perhaps only a decisive Ukrainian victory will lead to peace, although how this happens without a drawn out flushing of all Russian troops from the country is hard to understand. And how that in turn happens without more megabillions of collateral damage to the Ukrainian economy and without the negative consequences of an extended Ukrainian diaspora is harder still to see.
I do not have a blind spot for diplomatic solutions to Ukraine’s defense against Putin’s re-invasion. Rather, I recognize that there is not a diplomatic solution that would actually end Putin’s re-invasion. Right now Putin has stolen and is occupying the Donbas, Crimea, and is attempting to steal the rest of southern Ukraine so he can occupy that too. The Ukrainian’s objective – their war aims if you will – is to liberate all of Ukraine from Russian occupation. They have made it clear, repeatedly, that they seen no point in negotiating because 1) Putin has repeatedly demonstrated that his envoys and negotiators are not negotiating in good faith and 2) Putin has also repeatedly indicated very publicly that his objective – his war aims – are to take and occupy all of Ukraine.
Quite simply, this is Ukraine’s war. It is their defense of their homes, their state, and their society. And they get to determine how things are going to go. They have decided to fight rather than negotiate. They have very good reasons for doing so. Not least among them is any negotiated settlement that is not the result of Ukraine clearly defeating Russia and liberating the Ukrainian territories that Russia is occupying leaves Putin with a partial victory. A partial victory that will serve as the basis for him to then get out from under the sanctions regimes, rebuild, and try again to achieve his overall objective.
The other reason I recognize that there is no point in pushing the Ukrainians into negotiating with Russia is because Russia is doing this:
Her mum had her foot torn off after the Russian missile explosion. Doctors are fighting for her life.
— Maria Romanenko (@rommari) July 14, 2022
the difference in half an hour #Vinnytsia pic.twitter.com/pKaOdsXwQm
— Saint Javelin (@saintjavelin) July 14, 2022
From NGO Down Syndrome: "Today, our hearts are bleeding, and our eyes are full of tears because our family of many thousands has lost one of our own… They were just on their way from a speech therapy class, and they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." pic.twitter.com/wka5QvEMnP
— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) July 14, 2022
What, pray tell, would you recommend to the Ukrainians they should be negotiating with a genocidal invader that is choosing to target civilians and civilian infrastructure? That makes war on non-combatants. That seeks to cleanse Ukraine of Ukrainians. It is pushing the bounds of naivety to suggest that there is a diplomatic solution to Putin’s war against Ukraine. And that’s me being generous and not just saying its bad faith trolling.
War For Ukraine Day 141: I’m Going To Answer This Question One Last Time!Post + Comments (85)