The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
‘Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
~ The Clash
Two weeks ago, in London, I took part in a panel discussion on the Ukraine-Russia war at the House of Lords before an audience of 100 MPs and business leaders. It was a unique opportunity to address men and women who don’t necessarily hear points of view like mine.
The panel included my good friend, Danny Davis, who is probably the best American commentator on the Ukraine-Russia war, a senior economist from Rand, and the former head of the Royal Navy. It was moderated by a very successful American businessman. While we disagreed on details, we were, to my surprise, all agreed upon the urgent need for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. That point was met with acceptance by some in the audience, curiosity by others and outright hostility by the rest – a hostility reminiscent of Francis Bacon’s Idols of the Tribe.
If a video of the panel is posted, I will post it to this page. The comments from my colleagues and the back-and-forth between the panel and members of the audience are well worth listening to.
I’ll note that a week after our panel, Reuters published a big story on how Russia’s recent and current proposals for a ceasefire have been ignored by Ukraine and the West. I don’t know whether my analysis for Russia’s reasons for continuing to seek a ceasefire and negotiated settlement concurs with their actual reasons (the below remarks contain a truncated version of my thoughts on why Russia seeks negotiations, see here and here for longer thoughts).
Here’s what I said at the House of Lords:
In the traditional sense of victory, the capture and control of the entirety of Ukraine, the war is unwinnable for Russia.
While the Russian military and economy have grown stronger over the last two years, the size and resources, as well as the political will required to defeat and occupy all of Ukraine, are still well outside what Russia could marshal, field and produce.
The problem the Russians also have is for every mile they advance westward, they encounter fewer Russian-speaking Ukrainians and more Ukrainian-speakers. The Russians, by their admission, go from liberator to occupier the further west they move. Success along the conventional frontlines of the war, pushing the Ukrainian army westward, creates the probability of insurgency in their rear. So the Russians are increasingly perplexed with a two-front war the further west they move, again, a war in which they cannot achieve a traditional military victory.
Just as the war is unwinnable for the Russians, it is unwinnable for Ukraine and NATO. There is no possibility of Ukraine’s conventional victory over Russia; Russia is just too big and strong for that. We’ve seen a great deal of Russian preparation, competence, and adaptation in this war that needs to be respected and not underestimated. In Western politics, strategy, policies and media, we have seen the opposite of that, and the Ukrainians are paying the price for it.
The results promised by NATO these last two years have not come to pass: the collapse of the Russian economy, the defeat of the Russian army, and regime change in Russia. According to the American government, Russia is stronger now than it was two years ago. Russia is in a much better position than Ukraine and the West to wage an ongoing war of attrition.
To expel Russia from Ukraine, a NATO army – an army in the literal sense – 3-5 corps of armor and mechanized infantry units with full air, naval and missile support, attacking deep into Russia, is required. In short, it would be World War III.
A collapse of the Ukrainian military due to manpower, supply issues, including weapons and munitions, general officer incompetence, corruption, and tactical and operational defeat is a serious possibility. The same possibility exists for a collapse of the Ukrainian government due to corruption, loss of public support, economic and financial stress, and conceivable coup.
The continued NATO goal of a WWII-style victory over Russia exacerbates not only the risk of Ukrainian collapse and prolonged further suffering of Ukraine’s people and land but through the inevitability and inescapability of escalation, this NATO goal creates a risk trajectory that no one here should be willing to accept, particularly when compared with the prospects of a negotiated settlement.
We have already seen what a peace deal looks like through the 2015 Minsk II Accords and the forsaken April 2022 peace agreement. These were two genuine diplomatic attempts toward peace and stability that were undone by what can only be called militarist political desires.
The rough contours of the 2022 agreement drafted in Turkey included:
- a withdrawal of Russian forces to pre-February 24, 2022 borders;
- a fully demilitarized eastern Ukraine;
- a neutral Ukraine modeled on Austrian neutrality during the Cold War;
- a popular referendum in the Donbas region to ascertain future status in line with international law and conventions;
- guarantees of security by Western powers to Ukraine;
- guarantees of civil, political and cultural rights to all Ukrainians and;
- resolution of the status of Crimea decided by negotiation in the future.
Any agreement would, of course, have to be updated to include Ukraine’s reconstruction. It is worrisome that Russia speaks of the oblasts it controls as annexed to Russia, but more concerning for proponents of NATO’s victory strategy should be Western political uncertainty, especially American. (Due to time constraints, I did not include the italicized section in the remarks I delivered, but I include them here to help you understand what the forsaken April 2022 agreement between Ukraine and Russia looked like.)
A risk analysis for both sides leads to the conclusion that attempting a negotiated peace is much more reasonable than continuing an unwinnable war with its dangers of Ukrainian collapse for the West, an unwinnable forever war for Russia, and nuclear war for us all.
For Ukraine and the West, a continuation of the current NATO strategy means hoping for a stalemated war, hoping for tens of billions of dollars, pounds and euros to remain available to prevent collapse, and hoping that escalation doesn’t become apocalyptic. At the same time, the dying and destruction continue, something I have given much too little attention to. At best, this time next year, the same unwinnable meatgrinder of a war is raging, only with the risks worsened by time.
A golden bridge, built through a negotiated political settlement, as the Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu would undoubtedly recommend, is available and should be taken by both sides to exit from this war.
Matthew Hoh is the Associate Director of the Eisenhower Media Network. Matt is a former Marine Corps captain, Afghanistan State Department officer, a disabled Iraq War veteran and is a Senior Fellow Emeritus with the Center for International Policy. He writes at Substack.
Bravit!
Jun 2, 2024 Putin's Plan To Destroy UK, France's Nuclear Weapons In 1 Day If They Enter Ukraine: Big Claim By…
Russian military expert has issued a threat to Europe. Yuri Baranchik, according to a Sunday Times report, revealed details about Russia's 'Operation Unthinkable.' This operation is reportedly Putin’s plan if the Ukraine war turns into a global conflict. Baranchik stated that Russia will eliminate the nuclear potentials of Britain and France within one day after carrying out Operation Unthinkable.
https://youtu.be/LQH0v2HVkpY?si=kF5M2COBWrBRy-xr
"a war in which they cannot achieve a traditional military victory.Just as the war is unwinnable for the Russians…"
This is why I don't bother to listen to Hoh any more. He's an idiot.
He babbles on about an "insurgency." There will be no insurgency. The Ukrainians tried that from 1947 to 1956 and lost 200,000 people. Meanwhile Russia has done four insurgencies since then: Afghanistan, Chechnya (twice) and Syria. Been there, did that, learned how to deal with them (unlike the US which never did learn.)
He also forgets that in this day of surveillance and thermal vision lethal drones, insurgencies are almost impossible if you're not buried deep underground like Hamas and Hezbollah.
What the frack are you people even contemplating? WWIII is unacceptable from the get go. Does America have an Iron Dome in place? NO! Even if it did the Iranians proved it can be compromised. Does America have underground bunkers to house and save its population in the event of a nuclear war with Russia or China? NO! As far as the American government is concerned. So long suckers you're on your own. Good Luck and God Bless. NOT! The a-holes running this country are leading US down the road to Armageddon. Threatening to strike Russia with US/NATO missiles. Sending unlimited military supplies to Israel so it can commit genocide of Palestinian women and children. America is complicit in that genocide. Then these idiots turn and threaten China with economic war for over production and kinetic war over Taiwan at the same time if they don't conform the the Wests wishes. We need to remove these idiots from power before they write more checks our bodies can't cash. For if we don't, those bodies of ours will be atomized and or charred beyond recognition. NUTS
The problem I see in most analytical effors is — they sre not taking Russian positions seriously. They believe Russians like all other countries use bluff as a legitimate tool. And they take Russian offers if dialogue as weakness,. It is shocking to me to hear assumptions that Russia would take Ukraine — if they only could. But Russia is presumably too weak to pull it of.
First and foremost — Russia decided on military option once Minsk II was trashed. And — what West megaphone ignores — Ukraine has for 9 years bombarded civilian areas in Donbas and took all citizenhip rights away from ethnic Russians throughout Ukraine. The mission was to end this undeclared war Kiev was waging against own citzens. Question: why did Kiev cut all retirement payments to its rebelious province? Why stopping paying for schools, hospitals, orphanages and socialnservices to most vulnerable? And it happened in 2014, immediatelly after Donbas rebelion. Why did not Kiev continue paying for there obligations, thereby isolating and tempering secessionist desires, Most people in those regions would have preferred status quo, staying within Ukraine. But being all thrown away — and bombarderd — changed populat opinion. Russia took on all those obligations, restored services, build more health care facilities.
Ukraine — and by default West — have decided that they want the land (territorial integrity) but they do not want people.
Russia should have SOELLED OUT CLEARLY what the military operation is for. Yes, they belueve they did. But there is a communication problem, resulting in the lack if clarity on both sides.
If Russia made it clear that there is a three prong goal — and all equally important, it would stop the fantasies of Russia wanting to move into Eastern Europe. The three pillars are: No NATO or NATO countries mikitary infrastructure in Ukraine — whether Ukraine is a member or not . Second pillar is — Russia will protect population that Ukraine targeted, to insure Kiev cannot claim the land while expelling population. This is where the firm guidelines must come in. If Kiev does not change its criminal apartheid style discrimination — more Russian majority reguons would be recognized as part of Russia. . So far, four regions (five with Crimea) have been annexed. There are still four more regions with Rusdian majorities.
This defines then the third pillar. Policies in Kiev which are dictated by reanimated Nazi sentiment — have been behind the change in legislation that took the most fundamental rights of ethnic Russians. Russia’s goal of “denazification” is not clear unless this regime’s attrocious policies are overturned, and indiviulduaks harmed compenssated fir stolen property, illegal firing, abolishing political parties, TV and radio outlets. Fate of disappeared to be determineed.
This Nazi regime is West’s allies, and they are defended, their deeds and dismissing their critics. They are the ones supporting NATO. But it is up to Russia to explain better the nature of the regime, laws tgey passed wnd their victims.
all three goals are therefore interconnevted. Nazi regine — not a democracy — is desparate to get NATO into Ukraine and get US to fight Russia. The regime has deliberately changed laws to panic ethnic Russians and scare Russian speaking Ukrainians. By bombing Donbas snd in the end refusing Minsk process — they accomplished their goal — get NATO to fight proxy was against Russia.,
The quickest way the war will end is for Kiev regime to go, and all discriminatory legislation overturned. And this will not happen forcascling as West Ukraine is vulnerable and has no autonomy.
As it is not likely any time soon that Kiev will change — it is more likely that Russia moves further and incorporates more pro-Russian regions.
Hoh is wrong about resistance in areas that he thinks are Ukrainian. For example. In Kharkov, officially 25% Russian. How many soeakbRussian as first language? 50%. Now go on an look at the number of Orthodix Moscow Partriarchate (now banned), it is 75%. In reality, this is the real indicatir of how many Russian and pro-Russians live in Kharkov. The same is tru of Mykolaevo. Odessa, Dnyepro-Petrovsk.
So, the sioner Kiev gets a normal government, and discrimination overturned, the sioner war ends. However, NATO loves this regime as it is inviting NATO.