The Ukrainian Endgame

Winter is coming. Is peace-or-collapse what's left?

Older residents at a city assistance point in Donetsk region, where they receive support. Sixty per cent of older women are unable to provide for their own basic needs in Ukraine. Image: OCHA/Oleksandr Ratushniak

From an excellent Substack site by Nicolo Soldo, impishly named Fisted by Foucault, comes this dispassionate Ukraine War piece called “Towards the Endgame.” Here he’s descriptive only, which is its value.

Poking the Bear

First, the piece confirms what may or may not be the result of Lawrence Wilkerson’s thesis that the U.S. military, through Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin, has drawn a line in the sand regarding military support for Ukraine. If Wilkerson isn’t right, it’s as if he were.

Soldo (emphasis mine):

President Zelensky has just returned from an important trip to the USA, with reports informing us that he has come away empty-handed. An $8 Billion USD cheque was cut to support Ukraine’s continued defense, but that is nowhere near what he requested as part of his so-called “Victory Plan”. The Americans also rejected the other key element of that plan, denying Ukraine the right to use US arms to hit targets deep within Russia.

Whether this is Biden finding the limit to what he will do for Ukraine, or whether Lloyd Austin said to Biden “This far and no farther,” is immaterial to the result. The U.S., at least this week, won’t poke the bear by attacking (or allowing Ukraine to attack) deep targets in Russia.

‘Social Instability’

On the diplomatic front, Soldo quotes extensively from a paywalled Financial Times report. Remember, the FT is editorially pro-war in Ukraine. Yet they published this with seeming approval:

Multiple European diplomats who attended last week’s UN General Assembly in New York say there was a tangible shift in the tone and content of discussions around a potential settlement.

They note more openness from Ukrainian officials to discuss the potential for agreeing a ceasefire even while Russian troops remain on their territory, and more frank discussions among western officials about the urgency for a deal.

Ukraine’s new foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, used private meetings with western counterparts on his first trip to the US in the post to discuss potential compromise solutions, the diplomats said, and struck a more pragmatic tone on the possibility of land-for-security negotiations than his predecessor.

This is the “trading land for peace” option, surrendering territory to end the war.

Relying on a 2011 survey by Kyiv-based Razumkov think tank, the above map shows which parts of Ukraine could adopt Russian as a "regional" language and designates which parts of the country have already done so. Photo by kyivpost.

Says Soldo:

“We’re talking more and more openly about how this ends and what Ukraine would have to give up in order to get a permanent peace deal,” says one of the diplomats, who was present in New York. “And that’s a major change from even six months ago, when this kind of talk was taboo.”

The problem is the possibility of what one Ukrainian official calls “social instability.” From the Financial Times:

“There will always be a radical segment of Ukrainian society that will call any negotiation capitulation. The far right in Ukraine is growing. The right wing is a danger to democracy,” says Merezhko, who is an MP for Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party.

The emphasis above is Soldo’s, who adds:

Note the bolded portion: this is an excellent indication of how Ukraine intends to deal with the radical rightist element after the war is brought to a close. These rightists have been serving as cannon fodder on the front (recall Azov in Mariupol, for example) the entire time, to be disposed of afterwards….at least those who survive the meatgrinder. It remains a mystery to many how these right wingers can’t see this themselves. Some people insist on learning lessons the hard way. [emphasis mine]

That’s a pretty cynical view, that Zelenskyy would send Nazi-aligned Azov Brigade paramilitary troops to their deaths as a way of solving a domestic problem, but they wouldn’t be the first to get the “Bathsheba’s husband” treatment. Realpolitik.

Ukraine’s Azov Brigade. Nazi’s or no? Source: The Nation

Also, Ukraine’s winter is coming and its energy infrastructure has been severely damaged. From the BBC in May:

Winters in Ukraine are already harsh; this could be one of the worst in terms of unmet needs.

As sick of war as the population is, they’ve sunk a lot of lives and national wealth into the West-encouraged resistance that brought them to this point. Feelings of relief, should there be a settlement, will be mixed with a lot of anger from every side.

NATO

Then there’s the NATO problem. Zelenskyy desperately wants a NATO umbrella of protection around his battered country. The Financial Times again:

Nato membership remains Ukraine’s key goal, but very few of the alliance’s 32 members think it is possible without a full, lasting ceasefire and a defined line on the map that determines what portion of Ukraine’s territory the alliance’s mutual defence clause applies to.

Add to that recalcitrance, Russia’s unwillingness to agree to a “full, lasting ceasefire” that also allows Ukraine to join NATO. Opposition to Ukrainian NATO membership was one of Russia’s stated reasons for going to war in the first place.

Add to that the problem in the U.S.: Would our government, including the Pentagon, put the future defense of Ukraine under an American umbrella of protection? If, after a cease-fire, Russia re-attacked Ukraine, would the U.S. declare war on Russia?

Tony Blinken might want to. But Lloyd Austin? And what of the American people, to the extent they have a say?

Endgame

So the endgame in Ukraine, which could well play out soon, involves two alternatives — Ukrainian military and economic collapse as winter tightens its grip, or a negotiated “lasting ceasefire” that includes loss of territory, redrawn borders, and no NATO membership. I don’t think other choices are on the table.