The current Central Bank policy -- unlikely to change because Elvira is pursuing a theory she has -- is to jack interest rates up to the sky in a futile attempt to stop inflation. This will destroy private industry (it already is).
The current Finance Ministry policies include:
1 - to borrow rubles on worse and worse terms (now with variable interest rates designed to keep up with and exceed the skyrocketing inflation rate). Even with these terms they're having trouble placing bonds
2 - to sell all the gold and yuan in the National Wealth Fund. People will buy that, but it runs out by August of 2025 at the latest just based on current government expenditure rates (and quite possibly earlier since the depletion is getting accelerated)
3 - to cut salaries, wages, and bonus payments, exacerbating the flight of people from government jobs (including the military)
4 - skyrocketing taxes on everything
5 - to nationalize companies without compensation, but (a) they've already done so much of this there's not much left to do, and (b) they've bankrupted all the companies with the high interest rates and taxes, so there isn't any money in the companies anyway
Right. So what's left to pay the soldiers with? What's left to pay North Korea for weapons? What's left to pay the civilian workers, such as the railway workers (already a shortage) or the agricultural workers (already a shortage, and it's documented that farms are choosing not to plant because of the lack of profitability, and there's already a massive drop in crop production)? Obviously foreign investment isn't a possibility because nobody wants to invest in a country where you get nationalized without compensation next week.
Here are their remaining options when the gold runs out:
1 - hyperinflation
2 - not paying anyone and resorting to slavery -- already documented to be happening on a small scale -- but among the jobs which are underpaid and understaffed are police and "security" forces, so who's gonna do the enslaving?
Russia also has two major trade problems:
1 - they can't really export profitably any more. This is due to the redirection of all productive activity to the war they're losing. They're not making enough stuff to export. Even without the sanctions, nobody really wants their stuff and they're being outcompeted on every market. They are managing a few deals by selling at rock-bottom prices
2 - they can't really import significantly any more. This is due to payments. Even without the sanctions, nobody wants rubles, everyone demands hard currency. Due to substantial records of nonpayment, everyone wants the hard currency in advance before delivery.
The ruble has apparently switched to black-market trading against foreign currencies: "legit" trading has largely been suspended, as the central bank sets official rates which are unrelated to reality. The goverment is already preventing companies and individuals from converting rubles legally to hard currency in the volumes they want to, and actually forcing companies to convert their hard currency into worthless rubles at disadvantageous central bank rates, for years now (this is another method of bankrupting the companies).
Now Ukraine is definitely having problems but problems they do *not* have, problems which Russia has, include oncoming hyperinflation, the bankruptcy of all private businesses, inability to export, inability to import, brain drain, and logistical dependency on a single railroad stretching to the Pacific.
Faced with this situation, Putin is apparently trying to run an amphibious attack across the Dnipro River. (This is documented!) Turkey shoot for Ukraine.
There is no way in hell Putin comes out of this alive. It is unlikely Russia comes out of this in one piece (and good riddance, it was a colonialist empire, it should break up -- Free Tatarstan!)
Don't overestimate the relevance of the US. Or even the rest of Europe.
Agree entirely. This war in winnable for Ukraine, but it will need aid from somewhere to keep fighting. The Russian economy is showing major signs of stress.
FWIW, one thing which would accelerate Russian economic collapse substantially would be if Saudi Arabia opens the spigots -- they've stated they're going to end quota and compete on market share with Russia which would accelerate the Russian collapse, but we haven't seen much sign of it yet.
The Saudi’s are still holding back because the price of oil is not very high already. Recent price for Brent crude is $72/barrel. Except during recessions, that is the low end of normal. I doubt the Saudi’s want the price to drop below $60 if they can help it.
FWIW, modeling of electric car adoption suggests that the oil price will crash no matter *what* they do in roughly 2027, due to demand dropping faster than the rate in drop of supply from *existing* oil fields depleting. (This means that any new drilling in 2025 or later is unprofitable, given how long drilling takes).
If the Saudis want to maximize profit they need to sell the oil NOW even if it drives the price down -- not in 2027 when the price will start crashing through the floor. I'm not sure they're smart enough to recognize that.
Once the permanent glut hits, the oil price could easily drop to $30/bbl and stay there. (And it'll still be cheaper to operate an EV than a gasoline car.) Better for the Saudis to sell oil at $50 (which would bankrupt Russia) than at $30
Oh, I didn't mention that in the face of a monumental worker shortage, Putin decided to harass migrant workers, with the result that they're returning home.
Hi neroden. I'm now reading Mark Mazower's "Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe" (2008), and one of its recurrent themes is the mistakes the Nazis made, especially on the eastern front, because of their racism. WWII was, even before the Nazis decided to murder the Jews of Europe, a racial war of annihilation against Slavic peoples. Even though Hitler knew--because he'd read the writings of German anthropologists--that "Slavic" is not a racial, but a linguistic, category, he nevertheless despised Slavic peoples and sought to murder and enslave them. He did rank them, though. He thought that the Czechs were of a higher order than Poles and Ukrainians. Unlike Stalin, Hitler didn't murder any of the Nazi leadership for criticizing his policies, which means there are lots of extant primary documents that contain public criticisms of Hitler. One of the most common criticisms coming from some of the Nazi leadership concerned Himmler and the SS's treatment of Slavic workers. People like Werner Best, who were every bit as racist against Slavic peoples and Jews as were Himmler and Hitler, harshly criticized the chaos that Himmler and the SS brought to eastern Europe. Best and the others were thinking purely in economic terms. There was a war going on, they said, and Germany had to be able to support itself economically. Simply put, mistreating Slavic workers, they reasoned, brought more chaos to an already chaotic situation, was counterproductive because it might lead to rebellion, and therefore stupid. But Himmler got away with it because he was so close to Hitler.
About 10 minutes ago, just a few minutes after I started reading "Resources" in chapter 9 of Mazower's "Hitler's Empire" (p.290), I suddenly realized that "The Strategists," which has been sitting on my shelf since I bought it last August, would be a perfect companion to "Hitler's Empire." He's getting into Churchill now (1941), which put me in mind of the extract you released right around the time of publication. After I finish a book it's sometimes hard to figure out what I want to read next. I want to thank you for solving that little problem for me.
Worth noting: suppose you *believe* the Russian claim of recruiting 30,000 soldiers per month (many suspect that's too high). Russia is currently losing (through deaths or injuries sufficient to make them unable to fight) over 1500 per day. Do the math. That would leave them with a manpower deficit of 15,000 per month.
Attempting an increased draft in Russia simply removes workers from civilian industry -- if they're removed from the railway or trucking, it hampers the military's own logistics; if from the military manufacturing plants, it hampers the dwindling materiel supply; if from IT, it hampers the military's comms; if from food production, it hampers everyone's food supply; if from mining, it hampers the ability to get forex, which hampers the ability to smuggling necessary parts in.... there just isn't that much left to cannibalize.
This is probably why Putin hasn't attempted an increased draft and has focused on sending prisoners (who were not working in critical industries, obviously) to the front. He's now talking about making literal children work to deal with the worker shortage. There aren't that many children in Russia, so not only is this a sign of desperation, it won't even buy Putin much time.
I would like to emphasize that losing a war through complete economic collapse, which is what Putin is doing, is extraordinarily ugly. There are other ways to lose wars which are less damaging for civilians. This is the way which causes maximum damage to Russian civilians.
As a result, any true friend of the Russian people would want Putin to be overthrown quickly and violently before he destroys what's left of the Russian economy.
- your math isn’t right, because wounded in action casualties are thrown back into the fight.
- Russia is very cheaply recruiting small volumes of cannon fodder from allied govts / via human trafficking - e.g., NK and Yemen. After considering the above point, and depending how much more of this they can do, they may be able to offset many months or almost a year worth of deficit through their despicable methods.
Russia has a remarkably high rate of killed to wounded due to extremely poor medical treatment on the battlefield (Ukraine has much lower killed to wounded ratios), so the trend is still against them.
And I'm not sure how useful the severely wounded actually are. But the problem is basically a double-counting problem, though, right -- they get counted as wounded and removed from action one week, then as killed the next week?
Hi neoroden, passing along this data re: Russian force replenishment - looks like rate of contract soldier sign-ups dropped in Q3, likely from ~30k to ~20k / month. We’ll be able to confirm in a few months.
So if we assume the Russian rate of 1 killed to 3 wounded (which errs on the side of too many wounded, according to what I've been reading so far) and that half the wounded are just well enough to get thrown back in to be killed and are therefore double-counted, then 1500/day would mean 375 killed, 1125 wounded, so divide the wounded by two for being counted twice, and you're around 937/day out of action, or 28,110/month.
So recruitment of 20K/month isn't going to keep pace, is it.
I don't think North Korea is going to supply more troops given that Kremlin leaks say Kim is complaining about his soldiers getting mistreated & killed. And we don't know what Kim is being paid, but the only documented payments are pedigreed goats and other livestock.
Obviously Putin can still use the gold to pay workers domestically and to smuggle stuff from China but it's getting more difficult for him to use it in general. Starting in 2025 all the major diamond producers will be tracking diamonds except Russia, which will make it very difficult for Russia to smuggle out diamonds too.
Europe (or most of it) does not have to follow USA in throwing Ukraine under the bus.
Poland, The Baltic States, the Scandinavians, Netherlands, UK and France together have more than enough military, economic and political power to stand up to Putin and it is in their national interest to do so. It is up to our politicians to have the courage to do the right thing. Not supporting Ukraine would be a disaster, with profound implications and costs, that dwarf the cost of helping Ukraine prevail.
IM not disagreeing--I just cant see European states now opposing the US while the US is still part of NATO. Hopefully Im wrong--Ive just learned to be pessimistic
Very depressing Phillips. Call me mad but I have a funny feeling that Europe ( most of it) will actually continue to stand up for Ukraine, and call Trumps bluff on leaving/abandoning NATO. At least for starters….and indeed collectively Europe surely could force Putin to seek a way out. It certainly is one of those points where the judgement of history awaits…and a left field curve ball (Syria) changes the game?
I would like to think that--but if they feel that defying Trump might damage NATO, I have my doubts. Yes, EUrope alone could help Ukraine win, but as of now they lack the ability to act. Maybe they will develop it soon
The problems with all the plans that we hear about is that people treat this war as if it were about territory. But it's actually existential.
For the Ukrainians the war is truly existential. If they lose, their independent state will literally cease to exist. They already see brutal Russification policies in occupied territories and know that Russia wants to assimilate them all in all annexed (now and later) territories and suppress Ukrainian culture as much as possible in a rump state that may be left under control of a Russian friendly regime. Right now they are watching the actions of just such regime in what's left of Georgia. Except that at least the Russians don't want to turn the Georgians into Russians.
Of course, suppression of Ukrainian culture is also what was happening in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union. So the Ukrainians know very well that their nationhood is at stake. Ukrainian culture once thrived in the part of Ukraine that was a part of Austria-Hungary but was never ruled by Moscow. Stalin finally got that part under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, then soon lost it to the Nazis and finally reconquered in 1944. The locals were not thrilled and waged a guerrilla war for a decade (in fact it outlasted Stalin). And they won't submit to Moscow again. But they know that it's a lot easier to fight while still having a functional state and conventional armed forces, even very poorly supplied. So if it comes to that, I expect the AFU to fight to the bitter end.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. If the situation turns dire (and at the same time the West that does not supply Ukraine cannot tell it what to do and what not to do), Ukraine will be willing to take more risks. And the level of recklessness will depend on who's acting: Ukrainian state acting officially, Ukrainian state acting with plausible deniability, rogue elements within the state, actors outside government structures. There may be boneheaded actions, false flag operations etc. And what happens in Russia does not always stay in Russia (e.g. radiation from a blown up nuclear power plant). It is important to remember that rogue elements within the Serbian government once managed do drag the entire world into a devastating war. For the US and Europe, getting out of the Russo-Ukrainian war does not actually guarantee staying out.
But for Russia this was is also not just some colonial adventure like so many wars in Africa and Asia were for European empires. It is near existential. The Ukrainians are not just some random indigenous population. Russian chauvinists (including Putin and people around him) consider them a "Little Russian" branch of the "triune" Russian nation (alongside "Great Russians" and "White Russians", i.e. Belorussians). From their point of view, Russian nation is tragically divided after collapse of the Soviet Union and must be reunited. My impression is that most of the population has not quite accepted Ukrainian nationhood (and that' why anti-Ukrainian propaganda since late 2013 has been so effective). Ordinary Russians just feel that Ukraine is "theirs". For centuries Russia has claimed to be the successor of Kievan Rus. That part is actually true, but they claim to be the SOLE successor. And Kyiv has long been called "the mother of all Russian cities". It will be rather awkward for Russians when Kyiv is the third biggest city in the EU (or fourth, if the UK rejoins before Ukraine joins) rather than Russia (it would be if it were in Russia).
So Ukraine is an important part of Russian imperial project and of Russian historical narrative. If Ukraine finally manages to break up with Russia completely and join the West instead, Russian national identity will be in crisis. It will be further aggravated by a bitter military defeat, especially at the hands of the supposedly inferior Ukrainians (the Russians are the big brother in that relationship) rather than the advanced West. An important part of Russian national identity is belief in Russian might (and might makes right). The crisis of the Russian national identity may potentially lead to the breakup of the country (especially when numerous minority see Russian military impotence).
But there's also a separate threat to the Russian ruling class. If Ukraine joins the EU and NATO, massive reconstruction and investment will begin. Ukraine may well rise even faster than Poland did in the two decades since joining the EU. So in 20-30 years impoverished Russians (it WILL get worse for them) will be looking at a prosperous and democratic country populated by very similar people (many of whom even native Russian speakers) and asking why they can't be just like that, especially with all their natural resources. Russia may also "lose" Belarus to the West (Lukashenko's death will be an especially perilous moment).
For all these reasons I think that Russia - unless badly defeated or in a serious domestic crisis - will not agree to any deal that does not include an unwritten clause allowing Russia to re-invade later at a moment of its choosing. I.e. they won't agree to any real Western security guarantees, inside or outside NATO.
Russia not accepting Trump's plan is probably a good thing for Ukraine--as it would justify Europe stepping in. I agree Putin lusts after all Ukraine, but he doesnt have the army to take it, and his economy is not in great shape. If he can do something that would allow him to declare victory, I wonder if he takes it.
He may. But I doubt it. He has repeatedly miscalculated in his approach to Ukraine, always by dramatically overestimating Russian power. He started the whole mess by letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and ordering Yanukovich to cancel signing a mostly symbolic treaty with the EU (in 2013 there was no prospect of Ukraine actually joining the EU within Putin's lifetime). All he needed to do was to keep powerful pro-Russian political forces in Ukraine on a slightly longer leash. But no, he thought he had more control than he actually did. Then he grotesquely overestimated the willingness of Russian speakers in Odessa and Kharkiv (as well as all over Eastern and Southern Ukraine) to rise up against the Kyiv government. And eventually he had a completely unrealistic idea of the comparative military strength of Ukraine and Russia. Why stop now? And does he even know how bad his economy really is? Does anybody tell him the unvarnished truth rather than what he wants to hear?
Then there's a problem that Putin did not make it easy for himself to declare victory. He annexed much more territory than he actually controlled. So the Russian Constitution says that Zaporizzhia, Kherson and many other cities are Russian. Leaving them in Ukrainian hands and "the Nazi Zelensky regime" in power will not look like a great victory. He won't even get all of Donetsk People's Republic. Next year will see extravagant celebrations of 80th anniversary of victory in WWII. And Putin knows that nobody in Russia will believe that taking Pokrovsk is on par with taking Berlin.
Of course, Russian propaganda will try to spin anything. But Putin will be really tempted to try to take full advantage of Trump while he has him. And he knows he may not even have him for full four years, given Trump's age and decline. Sure, Vance does not sound much different. But Trump has long had some strange unique deference to Putin (and Putin may actually know the cause!). Vance has not. And if he replaces Trump, he will surely run for re-election, and he may not want a new Russian invasion of Ukraine just as candidates start creating exploratory committees. So given Putin's petty vindictiveness and hatred for Ukraine and the West, as well his propensity for strategic miscalculations and overestimating his power, he may (or may not!) just decide to go for victory in the here and now (I won't be surprised if, say, he sacrifices 100,000 soldiers trying to take Kharkiv by May 9).
Early in the war, when it became clear that Putin had vastly miscalculated, I thought that he would "declare victory and retreat". He could have declared that he had "deNazified Ukraine" (since this is a meaningless phrase) and just returned to the 2014 borders.
Catherine the Great would have! She knew when she'd lost, and knew how to sue for peace so she could try again later.
But he proved unwilling to. This surprised me. Putin is a fanatic.
Great rebuttal. I agree with your longer term analysis. An independent, prosperous Ukraine is a serious existential threat to the entire Russian nation. Russia has six autonomous republics within its boundaries. Four of them are near Ukraine. I can see one or more of them breaking away someday to join Ukraine
Which means Russia won't agree to any deal, because Ukraine will not agree to any deal which allows Russia to re-invade later, period, and Ukraine has enough military power to make that stick, even if it's going to be miserable for Ukrainians.
So there will be no deal. So this goes until Russia is badly defeated or has a serious domestic crisis (which are probably going to happen simultaneously)
There may be something worked out where both sides gamble they'll be able to turn it to their advantage later. But I doubt it. Ukraine may well call Europe's bluff. Will the Europeans trust Trump's promises of protection (which may expire anyway when the old man is suddenly and unexpectedly replaced by even more isolationist President Vance) to such an extent they will be cool with Russia annexing Ukraine and Moldova entirely and then loudly complaining about Estonian and Latvian Nazis persecuting ethnic Russians? Will they be comfortable with Ukraine fighting without any external restraints? E.g. Russia get A LOT of cash from its war by exporting oil. They use some shadow tanker fleet, and a lot of oil gets transferred between ships in the Aegean Sea. It will be a shame if something happens and results in a huge oil spill right in between all those beautiful Greek islands. But all's fair in love and war. And then, of course, there's a prospect of millions new Ukrainian refugees flooding Europe if (or rather when?) the war goes badly for Ukraine. Etc. etc. etc.
Sure, Scholz and his ilk would prefer Ukraine just to take a bad deal. But what if Ukraine refuses? Today is the 30th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum. The US and UK assured Ukraine of its independence and territorial integrity. Then 20 years later that's what they told Ukraine after annexation of Crimea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYQCb3qrBpo Then there were Minsk and Minsk 2. The Ukrainians quite openly say they won't accept any BS again - only real guarantees, period. It may look like it's over when Ukraine is told to take the deal and the aid is over. But was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Ukraine has agency. It can raise the stakes for those timid European politicians by telling them Ukraine will keep fighting with or without them. And then they may feel they have no choice other than prevent Ukraine from being overrun. Who knows, maybe this will be Putin's New Year Eve address a year from now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vse0fS5mrMc
Agree that the war is existential for Ukraine--but they will need aid to keep fighting. If they are presented a deal which allows them to keep 80 percent of their territory or lose all aid (including EUropean), in the short term they would be hard pressed to reject it. They will be stuck between a rock and a hard place. As of now, Germany, the UK and even Poland do not seem willing to risk any break with the USA.
Did the Taliban need aid to keep fighting? (You know the answer: they didn't.)
Aid saves Ukrainian lives and Ukrainian infrastructure.
But Ukrainians were ready to keep fighting with Molotov cocktails on day one when everyone thought that Russia was much stronger than it actually was -- and polls say Ukrainians would keep fighting if nuked -- and Russian soldiers in the occupied areas are being poisoned routinely. Don't overestimate the importance of aid.
I mean, yes, it's important to save Ukrainian lives and infrastructure, which is why Ukrainians are right to be angry that it's been slow-walked and denied. But will they stop fighting without aid? Nope, they'll keep fighting.
But the question is what they will be given. That will be the decisive factor. They know they are sufficiently stocked for the next several months and that later in the year Russian problems will become much worse. They also know that if Putin invades again in a few years, he'll have a partially rebuilt army while Ukraine may actually be in worse shape now because a lot of young(ish) men will take the opportunity to leave the country, while no significant investment will be forthcoming (and promises of future military aid may not materialize). As bad as it will be with the likely aid cutoff, it may be even worse in the future. So it is possible that depending on the deal offered, Ukraine will just keep fighting and let Europe deal with that reality (including the possibility that Russia will overrun Ukraine and Moldova and then will start wondering whether Trump and Vance will really protect Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).
Why are we talking about this? (It's a rhetorical question). Trump.
Your points are very well-made Phillips and I suspect you may be right that Europe will, including the UK, be subservient to whatever the US dictates even though it is not in their interests. However, in our democratic nations we should demand more from our so-called leaders.
So, what is the orange god-kings goal?
Firstly, he wants to reward putin for his "very strong leadership" and his exceptional "war machine" (Trumps view) by enforcing a ceasefire along current lines and thus reward an illegal invasion because Trump always follows the law. Secondly, he will provide no security guarantees and bully Europe into providing a minimal presance NOT under NATO. Thirdly, he will unilaterally lift all sanctions and try to bully Europe into doing the same and if we don't he will threaten withdrawing the US from NATO. Finally, his ultimate goal is to invite Russia into the G7. All the sorts of behaviour you would expect from a petulant child if he does not get his way.
What is going on at the moment in the US is a deliberate offensive operation to force fealty from all in the GOP. His nominations for key positions are pushing the boundaries and as we watch it's clear that he is making headway. This is nothing new. He did this in his first term and until the D's retook the House in 2018, he got away with it. Europe during his first term did learn to push back a bit, not enough, and that is why he is very happy to threaten US allies with tarrifs, particularly the EU.
Europe knows that US leadership, particularly regarding Ukraine, has failed and we must expect our leaders to acknowledge this and accept that the US cannot be expected to provide any support to our security now or in the future. Therefore, our leaders must start preparing to push back against any US negotiation that is not in the interests of Ukraine or Europe and accept that the US will probably withdraw from NATO.
Trump always wants to be the centre of attention and Europe must not allow that to happen. Europe contracted out its security to the US previously and now it must pay the price by uping its expenditure and supporting Ukraine to win or provide significant guarantees if it choses peace. Trump and the US have no say.
Trump is transactional. He wants to be the centre of attention, bring peace however feable and be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Europe cannot allow Trump to bully and pressure Ukraine into an agreement that will likely fall apart when he is out of office, which is likely and Europe knows this. So, its a case of resolving this satisfactorily now or pushing it down the road.
Its the very least we can expect from our leaders. They must take control of their own security and be no longer dependent on the US.
I would love to be wrong on this, and Europe will stand up for its own interests on Ukraine. I just have my doubts. Of course Trump might overplay his hand, and walk away from NATO anyway--which would force EUrope to start looking after itself
I always thought the 'orange-god-king's goal was to open a Trump Tower in Moscow, but you are probably right about his ego taking his ambition to a new level.
Phil, your suggestions for the Europeans are wonderful. They would actually greatly improve the security of Ukraine because Russia will never attack European troops. But I cannot imagine them coming to pass. The governance of the EU makes a Galapagos tortoise look agile and speedy. The EU can barely address domestic issues on a time scale of years. Foreign policy? Faggedabawdit. (New-Jersey-speak: “Forget about it.”)
Agree that structurally there are huge problems. Ultimately though the big 4 could come together in a common European position to push those 4 points. Not saying they will though
You could also have a consortium of the willing outside of NATO, perhaps led by Poland, backed up by Britain and France. Germany might join when the new chancellor is installed in spring 2025.
Russian rejecting the deal would be the best possible thing for Ukraine. THough Putin might take it, declare victory, and rebuild (knowing that Trump has no desire to ever fight for Europe)
It's not easy for me to imagine a deal that both sides will agree to. It's a zero sum game, and both sides know that the permanent end of the war can only be a total loss for one of them.
I can't see how this will play out. But I don't believe that the Europeans will submit to the tender mercies of either Trump or Putin. The threats of trusting either are materializing with each day. It's one thing to dare to ride the nauseating carnival ride, quite another to experience it.
Putin sabotaging undersea comms cables in the Baltic and sabotaging a DHL cargo plane probably changed the calculus in parts of Europe.
Honestly I think these moves made Western European nations far more likely to provide far more military support to Ukraine, while giving Putin essentially no benefit. Very bad moves. But Putin's making a lot of bad moves lately.
Talk about a low bar for Europe to exceed your expectations. How about Europe tells Trump it is unacceptable to reward Putin for his imperial war by placing his forces closer to Poland and the Baltic States this time on some legitimate basis backed by our supposed ally USA. How about we tell Trump the world has changed and now Poland Sweden and Finland know what Russia is that any deal has to be good for those neighbours of Russia not some lackey state thousands of miles away across an ocean or two. How about we in Europe decide we are better than Trump and the 76m+ idiots with no moral compass who voted for him and that we will go it alone with real allies to fight for freedom ours and Ukrainians if that's what it takes. Europe is strong enough militarily to face Russia. It just needs to believe in itself more and require its leaders t find a backbone.
Dead right! Some spine required. Ukraine is not giving up whatever Trump says or does. The war is existential and will only end when Putin ends. It is not a Trump or US decision. New world order!
I agree--but if Trump and the EUropeans wont provide military aid, Ukraine might have to accept some deal. I would like to think the European states would do the right think, just not convinced.
Spine in high demand, absolutely. New world order too. First we will have to endure the death throes of the old order which is unlikely to be pretty. Trump is a singularity for sure, but also a manifestation of strong populist (for lack of better term) undercurrents that will not disappear with him. FWIW it seems to me that the best hope is for Ukraine to somehow stay afloat until Russia collapses from within.
Unfortunately I don't think it will end with the end of Putin. This is what the Russians want. They want it now, just as they have for hundreds of years
I'm looking. For the collapse of the Russian economy. That's the only thing that will stop them, unless the Europeans put boots on the ground or China pulls Putin's leash because it's bad for China's trading
Hi Brian--so far they seem to be going the opposite way--bending over backwards to say that they can work with Trump. I think they will continue to do so as long as Trump says he will stay in NATO
Great analysis. The key proposal, which I'm delighted you are pushing forward (why hasn't everybody??) is boots on the ground inside Ukraine. Churchill reportedly said that all he needed to defend Europe was one American soldier, "preferably dead." EU soldiers near the cease-fire line should be the sine qua non for a cease-fire. Of course they might run away (Srebrenica) but it may be, as you say, the best chance.
I think we have to view the negotiation as a deal between Putin & Trump.
Sorry for the spam repeat link, but Stefan Korshak analyzed how daunting it would be to credibly police a DMZ. What countries are going to place their troops at risk in this giant & shaky ceasefire zones?
BTW, JD Vance is a big proponent of creating a DMZ. That tells you how unserious the implementation will be. Its just a fig leaf for a surrender to Putin.
Bleak, but accurate. The dirty secret is that the establishment types on both sides of the Atlantic are largely in agreement on the basics of the Trump plan. This is obvious to anyone who reads the NY Times, for instance. They all want Ukraine to be "realistic" and cede people, er, territory.
Of course, Trump will do more to screw Ukraine, faster and harder. In addition to your points I'd add: immediate cessation of intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Trump bro Elon Musk shutting down Starlink over Ukraine (devastating for the AFU). No more spare parts for US equipment.
However, looking at what's happening in Syria and Georgia, I wonder whether there still may be surprises in store? Maybe someone can still convince Trump that Russia is in bed with China and Iran and N Korea and is, in fact, an enemy of the US? No, what am I thinking, Trump just wants to declare victory and collect his Nobel prize.
Agreed, but the chances of Ukraine receiving that aid are slim. I notice at least one big thing missing in the new "Jake Sullivan" aid package: JASSMs. Ukraine is just getting to the place where it has enough F-16s to get more offense going but the actual "game changer" there would be JASSMs. So far, no joy from the Biden admin.
Great article. Only thing not mentioned is which EU nations might step up to provide feet-on-the-ground military assistance. I see only two or three possibilities: England, Poland and Italy. Think France and Germany are like the USA and not dependable.
Assuming at least some European leaders of significant importance want to act to help Ukraine by placing troops inside Ukraine in a defensive role, allowing the Ukrainians to hold or reclaim their territory, questions are:
- who might lead a coalition of the willing. Starmer or Macron as countries with nuclear deterrence?
- if some European troops were stationed in Ukraine and were killed in large numbers, say with ICBMs, what would be the response and how might that affect domestic/ international politics.
If we accept the economic analysis from Mr Pavelyev, then this strategy alongside full-on supply of additional arms from non involved european states, may, just may, be enough to create such economic hardship for ordinary russians, that the material costs exceed the existential benefits.
I do sincerely hope this is what Rutter is trying to negotiate now. It will need a major surge in courage, leadership, rhetoric, public support and action.
The troops into Ukraine situation would probably require 3 of Europe's big 4 (UK, France and Poland). Hard to see Germany joining. Those first three could lead a coalition of the willing, however.
Truly a sad and disappointing coda to Pax Americana. There is good chance that with Germany and now unsettled France in the lead, Europe will go supine and grovel. If this is the case, no matter what the contours of the Ukraine settlement, security uncertainty will ensue as the rest of Europe will be now vulnerable to Putin's inflated ego and alliance with Trump.
Watch the Russian economy.
The current Central Bank policy -- unlikely to change because Elvira is pursuing a theory she has -- is to jack interest rates up to the sky in a futile attempt to stop inflation. This will destroy private industry (it already is).
The current Finance Ministry policies include:
1 - to borrow rubles on worse and worse terms (now with variable interest rates designed to keep up with and exceed the skyrocketing inflation rate). Even with these terms they're having trouble placing bonds
2 - to sell all the gold and yuan in the National Wealth Fund. People will buy that, but it runs out by August of 2025 at the latest just based on current government expenditure rates (and quite possibly earlier since the depletion is getting accelerated)
3 - to cut salaries, wages, and bonus payments, exacerbating the flight of people from government jobs (including the military)
4 - skyrocketing taxes on everything
5 - to nationalize companies without compensation, but (a) they've already done so much of this there's not much left to do, and (b) they've bankrupted all the companies with the high interest rates and taxes, so there isn't any money in the companies anyway
Right. So what's left to pay the soldiers with? What's left to pay North Korea for weapons? What's left to pay the civilian workers, such as the railway workers (already a shortage) or the agricultural workers (already a shortage, and it's documented that farms are choosing not to plant because of the lack of profitability, and there's already a massive drop in crop production)? Obviously foreign investment isn't a possibility because nobody wants to invest in a country where you get nationalized without compensation next week.
Here are their remaining options when the gold runs out:
1 - hyperinflation
2 - not paying anyone and resorting to slavery -- already documented to be happening on a small scale -- but among the jobs which are underpaid and understaffed are police and "security" forces, so who's gonna do the enslaving?
Russia also has two major trade problems:
1 - they can't really export profitably any more. This is due to the redirection of all productive activity to the war they're losing. They're not making enough stuff to export. Even without the sanctions, nobody really wants their stuff and they're being outcompeted on every market. They are managing a few deals by selling at rock-bottom prices
2 - they can't really import significantly any more. This is due to payments. Even without the sanctions, nobody wants rubles, everyone demands hard currency. Due to substantial records of nonpayment, everyone wants the hard currency in advance before delivery.
The ruble has apparently switched to black-market trading against foreign currencies: "legit" trading has largely been suspended, as the central bank sets official rates which are unrelated to reality. The goverment is already preventing companies and individuals from converting rubles legally to hard currency in the volumes they want to, and actually forcing companies to convert their hard currency into worthless rubles at disadvantageous central bank rates, for years now (this is another method of bankrupting the companies).
Now Ukraine is definitely having problems but problems they do *not* have, problems which Russia has, include oncoming hyperinflation, the bankruptcy of all private businesses, inability to export, inability to import, brain drain, and logistical dependency on a single railroad stretching to the Pacific.
Faced with this situation, Putin is apparently trying to run an amphibious attack across the Dnipro River. (This is documented!) Turkey shoot for Ukraine.
There is no way in hell Putin comes out of this alive. It is unlikely Russia comes out of this in one piece (and good riddance, it was a colonialist empire, it should break up -- Free Tatarstan!)
Don't overestimate the relevance of the US. Or even the rest of Europe.
Agree entirely. This war in winnable for Ukraine, but it will need aid from somewhere to keep fighting. The Russian economy is showing major signs of stress.
FWIW, one thing which would accelerate Russian economic collapse substantially would be if Saudi Arabia opens the spigots -- they've stated they're going to end quota and compete on market share with Russia which would accelerate the Russian collapse, but we haven't seen much sign of it yet.
Yep--the best way to go after their economy is to depress the oil price
The Saudi’s are still holding back because the price of oil is not very high already. Recent price for Brent crude is $72/barrel. Except during recessions, that is the low end of normal. I doubt the Saudi’s want the price to drop below $60 if they can help it.
FWIW, modeling of electric car adoption suggests that the oil price will crash no matter *what* they do in roughly 2027, due to demand dropping faster than the rate in drop of supply from *existing* oil fields depleting. (This means that any new drilling in 2025 or later is unprofitable, given how long drilling takes).
If the Saudis want to maximize profit they need to sell the oil NOW even if it drives the price down -- not in 2027 when the price will start crashing through the floor. I'm not sure they're smart enough to recognize that.
Once the permanent glut hits, the oil price could easily drop to $30/bbl and stay there. (And it'll still be cheaper to operate an EV than a gasoline car.) Better for the Saudis to sell oil at $50 (which would bankrupt Russia) than at $30
Oh, I didn't mention that in the face of a monumental worker shortage, Putin decided to harass migrant workers, with the result that they're returning home.
Hi neroden. I'm now reading Mark Mazower's "Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe" (2008), and one of its recurrent themes is the mistakes the Nazis made, especially on the eastern front, because of their racism. WWII was, even before the Nazis decided to murder the Jews of Europe, a racial war of annihilation against Slavic peoples. Even though Hitler knew--because he'd read the writings of German anthropologists--that "Slavic" is not a racial, but a linguistic, category, he nevertheless despised Slavic peoples and sought to murder and enslave them. He did rank them, though. He thought that the Czechs were of a higher order than Poles and Ukrainians. Unlike Stalin, Hitler didn't murder any of the Nazi leadership for criticizing his policies, which means there are lots of extant primary documents that contain public criticisms of Hitler. One of the most common criticisms coming from some of the Nazi leadership concerned Himmler and the SS's treatment of Slavic workers. People like Werner Best, who were every bit as racist against Slavic peoples and Jews as were Himmler and Hitler, harshly criticized the chaos that Himmler and the SS brought to eastern Europe. Best and the others were thinking purely in economic terms. There was a war going on, they said, and Germany had to be able to support itself economically. Simply put, mistreating Slavic workers, they reasoned, brought more chaos to an already chaotic situation, was counterproductive because it might lead to rebellion, and therefore stupid. But Himmler got away with it because he was so close to Hitler.
Mazower's book is excellent
About 10 minutes ago, just a few minutes after I started reading "Resources" in chapter 9 of Mazower's "Hitler's Empire" (p.290), I suddenly realized that "The Strategists," which has been sitting on my shelf since I bought it last August, would be a perfect companion to "Hitler's Empire." He's getting into Churchill now (1941), which put me in mind of the extract you released right around the time of publication. After I finish a book it's sometimes hard to figure out what I want to read next. I want to thank you for solving that little problem for me.
Thanks to the person in an earlier comments section (I forget who you are!) who linked this analysis -- https://frontelligence.substack.com/p/war-deficits-and-the-russian-economy
I actually knew most of this stuff already from other sources but it's nice to have it in one place, this coherently
Worth noting: suppose you *believe* the Russian claim of recruiting 30,000 soldiers per month (many suspect that's too high). Russia is currently losing (through deaths or injuries sufficient to make them unable to fight) over 1500 per day. Do the math. That would leave them with a manpower deficit of 15,000 per month.
Attempting an increased draft in Russia simply removes workers from civilian industry -- if they're removed from the railway or trucking, it hampers the military's own logistics; if from the military manufacturing plants, it hampers the dwindling materiel supply; if from IT, it hampers the military's comms; if from food production, it hampers everyone's food supply; if from mining, it hampers the ability to get forex, which hampers the ability to smuggling necessary parts in.... there just isn't that much left to cannibalize.
This is probably why Putin hasn't attempted an increased draft and has focused on sending prisoners (who were not working in critical industries, obviously) to the front. He's now talking about making literal children work to deal with the worker shortage. There aren't that many children in Russia, so not only is this a sign of desperation, it won't even buy Putin much time.
I would like to emphasize that losing a war through complete economic collapse, which is what Putin is doing, is extraordinarily ugly. There are other ways to lose wars which are less damaging for civilians. This is the way which causes maximum damage to Russian civilians.
As a result, any true friend of the Russian people would want Putin to be overthrown quickly and violently before he destroys what's left of the Russian economy.
Couple small points:
- your math isn’t right, because wounded in action casualties are thrown back into the fight.
- Russia is very cheaply recruiting small volumes of cannon fodder from allied govts / via human trafficking - e.g., NK and Yemen. After considering the above point, and depending how much more of this they can do, they may be able to offset many months or almost a year worth of deficit through their despicable methods.
Hmmm, fair point about the wounded.
Russia has a remarkably high rate of killed to wounded due to extremely poor medical treatment on the battlefield (Ukraine has much lower killed to wounded ratios), so the trend is still against them.
And I'm not sure how useful the severely wounded actually are. But the problem is basically a double-counting problem, though, right -- they get counted as wounded and removed from action one week, then as killed the next week?
Hi neoroden, passing along this data re: Russian force replenishment - looks like rate of contract soldier sign-ups dropped in Q3, likely from ~30k to ~20k / month. We’ll be able to confirm in a few months.
https://meduza.io/amp/en/feature/2024/12/04/even-after-doubling-its-sign-on-bonus-payment-the-russian-army-s-recruitment-rate-is-falling-losses-may-now-outpace-new-enlistments
Wow.
So if we assume the Russian rate of 1 killed to 3 wounded (which errs on the side of too many wounded, according to what I've been reading so far) and that half the wounded are just well enough to get thrown back in to be killed and are therefore double-counted, then 1500/day would mean 375 killed, 1125 wounded, so divide the wounded by two for being counted twice, and you're around 937/day out of action, or 28,110/month.
So recruitment of 20K/month isn't going to keep pace, is it.
I don't think North Korea is going to supply more troops given that Kremlin leaks say Kim is complaining about his soldiers getting mistreated & killed. And we don't know what Kim is being paid, but the only documented payments are pedigreed goats and other livestock.
In regards to the use of gold:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk-sanctions-illicit-gold-trade-players-bid-cut-russias-war-funding-2024-12-09/
Obviously Putin can still use the gold to pay workers domestically and to smuggle stuff from China but it's getting more difficult for him to use it in general. Starting in 2025 all the major diamond producers will be tracking diamonds except Russia, which will make it very difficult for Russia to smuggle out diamonds too.
Europe (or most of it) does not have to follow USA in throwing Ukraine under the bus.
Poland, The Baltic States, the Scandinavians, Netherlands, UK and France together have more than enough military, economic and political power to stand up to Putin and it is in their national interest to do so. It is up to our politicians to have the courage to do the right thing. Not supporting Ukraine would be a disaster, with profound implications and costs, that dwarf the cost of helping Ukraine prevail.
IM not disagreeing--I just cant see European states now opposing the US while the US is still part of NATO. Hopefully Im wrong--Ive just learned to be pessimistic
Very depressing Phillips. Call me mad but I have a funny feeling that Europe ( most of it) will actually continue to stand up for Ukraine, and call Trumps bluff on leaving/abandoning NATO. At least for starters….and indeed collectively Europe surely could force Putin to seek a way out. It certainly is one of those points where the judgement of history awaits…and a left field curve ball (Syria) changes the game?
I would like to think that--but if they feel that defying Trump might damage NATO, I have my doubts. Yes, EUrope alone could help Ukraine win, but as of now they lack the ability to act. Maybe they will develop it soon
Phillips, Europe should intervene upon Trumps attempts. Eastern Europe especially.
Should does not mean they will...
The problems with all the plans that we hear about is that people treat this war as if it were about territory. But it's actually existential.
For the Ukrainians the war is truly existential. If they lose, their independent state will literally cease to exist. They already see brutal Russification policies in occupied territories and know that Russia wants to assimilate them all in all annexed (now and later) territories and suppress Ukrainian culture as much as possible in a rump state that may be left under control of a Russian friendly regime. Right now they are watching the actions of just such regime in what's left of Georgia. Except that at least the Russians don't want to turn the Georgians into Russians.
Of course, suppression of Ukrainian culture is also what was happening in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union. So the Ukrainians know very well that their nationhood is at stake. Ukrainian culture once thrived in the part of Ukraine that was a part of Austria-Hungary but was never ruled by Moscow. Stalin finally got that part under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, then soon lost it to the Nazis and finally reconquered in 1944. The locals were not thrilled and waged a guerrilla war for a decade (in fact it outlasted Stalin). And they won't submit to Moscow again. But they know that it's a lot easier to fight while still having a functional state and conventional armed forces, even very poorly supplied. So if it comes to that, I expect the AFU to fight to the bitter end.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. If the situation turns dire (and at the same time the West that does not supply Ukraine cannot tell it what to do and what not to do), Ukraine will be willing to take more risks. And the level of recklessness will depend on who's acting: Ukrainian state acting officially, Ukrainian state acting with plausible deniability, rogue elements within the state, actors outside government structures. There may be boneheaded actions, false flag operations etc. And what happens in Russia does not always stay in Russia (e.g. radiation from a blown up nuclear power plant). It is important to remember that rogue elements within the Serbian government once managed do drag the entire world into a devastating war. For the US and Europe, getting out of the Russo-Ukrainian war does not actually guarantee staying out.
But for Russia this was is also not just some colonial adventure like so many wars in Africa and Asia were for European empires. It is near existential. The Ukrainians are not just some random indigenous population. Russian chauvinists (including Putin and people around him) consider them a "Little Russian" branch of the "triune" Russian nation (alongside "Great Russians" and "White Russians", i.e. Belorussians). From their point of view, Russian nation is tragically divided after collapse of the Soviet Union and must be reunited. My impression is that most of the population has not quite accepted Ukrainian nationhood (and that' why anti-Ukrainian propaganda since late 2013 has been so effective). Ordinary Russians just feel that Ukraine is "theirs". For centuries Russia has claimed to be the successor of Kievan Rus. That part is actually true, but they claim to be the SOLE successor. And Kyiv has long been called "the mother of all Russian cities". It will be rather awkward for Russians when Kyiv is the third biggest city in the EU (or fourth, if the UK rejoins before Ukraine joins) rather than Russia (it would be if it were in Russia).
So Ukraine is an important part of Russian imperial project and of Russian historical narrative. If Ukraine finally manages to break up with Russia completely and join the West instead, Russian national identity will be in crisis. It will be further aggravated by a bitter military defeat, especially at the hands of the supposedly inferior Ukrainians (the Russians are the big brother in that relationship) rather than the advanced West. An important part of Russian national identity is belief in Russian might (and might makes right). The crisis of the Russian national identity may potentially lead to the breakup of the country (especially when numerous minority see Russian military impotence).
But there's also a separate threat to the Russian ruling class. If Ukraine joins the EU and NATO, massive reconstruction and investment will begin. Ukraine may well rise even faster than Poland did in the two decades since joining the EU. So in 20-30 years impoverished Russians (it WILL get worse for them) will be looking at a prosperous and democratic country populated by very similar people (many of whom even native Russian speakers) and asking why they can't be just like that, especially with all their natural resources. Russia may also "lose" Belarus to the West (Lukashenko's death will be an especially perilous moment).
For all these reasons I think that Russia - unless badly defeated or in a serious domestic crisis - will not agree to any deal that does not include an unwritten clause allowing Russia to re-invade later at a moment of its choosing. I.e. they won't agree to any real Western security guarantees, inside or outside NATO.
Russia not accepting Trump's plan is probably a good thing for Ukraine--as it would justify Europe stepping in. I agree Putin lusts after all Ukraine, but he doesnt have the army to take it, and his economy is not in great shape. If he can do something that would allow him to declare victory, I wonder if he takes it.
He may. But I doubt it. He has repeatedly miscalculated in his approach to Ukraine, always by dramatically overestimating Russian power. He started the whole mess by letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and ordering Yanukovich to cancel signing a mostly symbolic treaty with the EU (in 2013 there was no prospect of Ukraine actually joining the EU within Putin's lifetime). All he needed to do was to keep powerful pro-Russian political forces in Ukraine on a slightly longer leash. But no, he thought he had more control than he actually did. Then he grotesquely overestimated the willingness of Russian speakers in Odessa and Kharkiv (as well as all over Eastern and Southern Ukraine) to rise up against the Kyiv government. And eventually he had a completely unrealistic idea of the comparative military strength of Ukraine and Russia. Why stop now? And does he even know how bad his economy really is? Does anybody tell him the unvarnished truth rather than what he wants to hear?
Then there's a problem that Putin did not make it easy for himself to declare victory. He annexed much more territory than he actually controlled. So the Russian Constitution says that Zaporizzhia, Kherson and many other cities are Russian. Leaving them in Ukrainian hands and "the Nazi Zelensky regime" in power will not look like a great victory. He won't even get all of Donetsk People's Republic. Next year will see extravagant celebrations of 80th anniversary of victory in WWII. And Putin knows that nobody in Russia will believe that taking Pokrovsk is on par with taking Berlin.
Of course, Russian propaganda will try to spin anything. But Putin will be really tempted to try to take full advantage of Trump while he has him. And he knows he may not even have him for full four years, given Trump's age and decline. Sure, Vance does not sound much different. But Trump has long had some strange unique deference to Putin (and Putin may actually know the cause!). Vance has not. And if he replaces Trump, he will surely run for re-election, and he may not want a new Russian invasion of Ukraine just as candidates start creating exploratory committees. So given Putin's petty vindictiveness and hatred for Ukraine and the West, as well his propensity for strategic miscalculations and overestimating his power, he may (or may not!) just decide to go for victory in the here and now (I won't be surprised if, say, he sacrifices 100,000 soldiers trying to take Kharkiv by May 9).
Early in the war, when it became clear that Putin had vastly miscalculated, I thought that he would "declare victory and retreat". He could have declared that he had "deNazified Ukraine" (since this is a meaningless phrase) and just returned to the 2014 borders.
Catherine the Great would have! She knew when she'd lost, and knew how to sue for peace so she could try again later.
But he proved unwilling to. This surprised me. Putin is a fanatic.
He's not a full-fledged fanatic. But he's more stubborn and vicious than many people in the West think.
Great rebuttal. I agree with your longer term analysis. An independent, prosperous Ukraine is a serious existential threat to the entire Russian nation. Russia has six autonomous republics within its boundaries. Four of them are near Ukraine. I can see one or more of them breaking away someday to join Ukraine
Russia is not strong enough to conquer all of Ukraine--so the future will be tricky if they want to keep trying.
I that a cunning plan, by any chance?
Which means Russia won't agree to any deal, because Ukraine will not agree to any deal which allows Russia to re-invade later, period, and Ukraine has enough military power to make that stick, even if it's going to be miserable for Ukrainians.
So there will be no deal. So this goes until Russia is badly defeated or has a serious domestic crisis (which are probably going to happen simultaneously)
There may be something worked out where both sides gamble they'll be able to turn it to their advantage later. But I doubt it. Ukraine may well call Europe's bluff. Will the Europeans trust Trump's promises of protection (which may expire anyway when the old man is suddenly and unexpectedly replaced by even more isolationist President Vance) to such an extent they will be cool with Russia annexing Ukraine and Moldova entirely and then loudly complaining about Estonian and Latvian Nazis persecuting ethnic Russians? Will they be comfortable with Ukraine fighting without any external restraints? E.g. Russia get A LOT of cash from its war by exporting oil. They use some shadow tanker fleet, and a lot of oil gets transferred between ships in the Aegean Sea. It will be a shame if something happens and results in a huge oil spill right in between all those beautiful Greek islands. But all's fair in love and war. And then, of course, there's a prospect of millions new Ukrainian refugees flooding Europe if (or rather when?) the war goes badly for Ukraine. Etc. etc. etc.
Sure, Scholz and his ilk would prefer Ukraine just to take a bad deal. But what if Ukraine refuses? Today is the 30th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum. The US and UK assured Ukraine of its independence and territorial integrity. Then 20 years later that's what they told Ukraine after annexation of Crimea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYQCb3qrBpo Then there were Minsk and Minsk 2. The Ukrainians quite openly say they won't accept any BS again - only real guarantees, period. It may look like it's over when Ukraine is told to take the deal and the aid is over. But was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Ukraine has agency. It can raise the stakes for those timid European politicians by telling them Ukraine will keep fighting with or without them. And then they may feel they have no choice other than prevent Ukraine from being overrun. Who knows, maybe this will be Putin's New Year Eve address a year from now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vse0fS5mrMc
Agree that the war is existential for Ukraine--but they will need aid to keep fighting. If they are presented a deal which allows them to keep 80 percent of their territory or lose all aid (including EUropean), in the short term they would be hard pressed to reject it. They will be stuck between a rock and a hard place. As of now, Germany, the UK and even Poland do not seem willing to risk any break with the USA.
Did the Taliban need aid to keep fighting? (You know the answer: they didn't.)
Aid saves Ukrainian lives and Ukrainian infrastructure.
But Ukrainians were ready to keep fighting with Molotov cocktails on day one when everyone thought that Russia was much stronger than it actually was -- and polls say Ukrainians would keep fighting if nuked -- and Russian soldiers in the occupied areas are being poisoned routinely. Don't overestimate the importance of aid.
I mean, yes, it's important to save Ukrainian lives and infrastructure, which is why Ukrainians are right to be angry that it's been slow-walked and denied. But will they stop fighting without aid? Nope, they'll keep fighting.
But the question is what they will be given. That will be the decisive factor. They know they are sufficiently stocked for the next several months and that later in the year Russian problems will become much worse. They also know that if Putin invades again in a few years, he'll have a partially rebuilt army while Ukraine may actually be in worse shape now because a lot of young(ish) men will take the opportunity to leave the country, while no significant investment will be forthcoming (and promises of future military aid may not materialize). As bad as it will be with the likely aid cutoff, it may be even worse in the future. So it is possible that depending on the deal offered, Ukraine will just keep fighting and let Europe deal with that reality (including the possibility that Russia will overrun Ukraine and Moldova and then will start wondering whether Trump and Vance will really protect Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).
Why would Vance or any American have a say on wether Ukraine joins the EU? That's not their decision to make.
Doesnt mean they wont try--and use NATO as a club to try and get their way.
Why?
Why are we talking about this? (It's a rhetorical question). Trump.
Your points are very well-made Phillips and I suspect you may be right that Europe will, including the UK, be subservient to whatever the US dictates even though it is not in their interests. However, in our democratic nations we should demand more from our so-called leaders.
So, what is the orange god-kings goal?
Firstly, he wants to reward putin for his "very strong leadership" and his exceptional "war machine" (Trumps view) by enforcing a ceasefire along current lines and thus reward an illegal invasion because Trump always follows the law. Secondly, he will provide no security guarantees and bully Europe into providing a minimal presance NOT under NATO. Thirdly, he will unilaterally lift all sanctions and try to bully Europe into doing the same and if we don't he will threaten withdrawing the US from NATO. Finally, his ultimate goal is to invite Russia into the G7. All the sorts of behaviour you would expect from a petulant child if he does not get his way.
What is going on at the moment in the US is a deliberate offensive operation to force fealty from all in the GOP. His nominations for key positions are pushing the boundaries and as we watch it's clear that he is making headway. This is nothing new. He did this in his first term and until the D's retook the House in 2018, he got away with it. Europe during his first term did learn to push back a bit, not enough, and that is why he is very happy to threaten US allies with tarrifs, particularly the EU.
Europe knows that US leadership, particularly regarding Ukraine, has failed and we must expect our leaders to acknowledge this and accept that the US cannot be expected to provide any support to our security now or in the future. Therefore, our leaders must start preparing to push back against any US negotiation that is not in the interests of Ukraine or Europe and accept that the US will probably withdraw from NATO.
Trump always wants to be the centre of attention and Europe must not allow that to happen. Europe contracted out its security to the US previously and now it must pay the price by uping its expenditure and supporting Ukraine to win or provide significant guarantees if it choses peace. Trump and the US have no say.
Trump is transactional. He wants to be the centre of attention, bring peace however feable and be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Europe cannot allow Trump to bully and pressure Ukraine into an agreement that will likely fall apart when he is out of office, which is likely and Europe knows this. So, its a case of resolving this satisfactorily now or pushing it down the road.
Its the very least we can expect from our leaders. They must take control of their own security and be no longer dependent on the US.
I would love to be wrong on this, and Europe will stand up for its own interests on Ukraine. I just have my doubts. Of course Trump might overplay his hand, and walk away from NATO anyway--which would force EUrope to start looking after itself
I always thought the 'orange-god-king's goal was to open a Trump Tower in Moscow, but you are probably right about his ego taking his ambition to a new level.
Phil, your suggestions for the Europeans are wonderful. They would actually greatly improve the security of Ukraine because Russia will never attack European troops. But I cannot imagine them coming to pass. The governance of the EU makes a Galapagos tortoise look agile and speedy. The EU can barely address domestic issues on a time scale of years. Foreign policy? Faggedabawdit. (New-Jersey-speak: “Forget about it.”)
Agree that structurally there are huge problems. Ultimately though the big 4 could come together in a common European position to push those 4 points. Not saying they will though
You could also have a consortium of the willing outside of NATO, perhaps led by Poland, backed up by Britain and France. Germany might join when the new chancellor is installed in spring 2025.
Yes, thats a good way to frame it.
OK, so what happens when neither Ukraine nor Russia agrees to the deal?
Russian rejecting the deal would be the best possible thing for Ukraine. THough Putin might take it, declare victory, and rebuild (knowing that Trump has no desire to ever fight for Europe)
It's not easy for me to imagine a deal that both sides will agree to. It's a zero sum game, and both sides know that the permanent end of the war can only be a total loss for one of them.
I can't see how this will play out. But I don't believe that the Europeans will submit to the tender mercies of either Trump or Putin. The threats of trusting either are materializing with each day. It's one thing to dare to ride the nauseating carnival ride, quite another to experience it.
I hope you are right Richard.
counterpoint:
Europe won't do a damn thing until disaster threatens non-frontline nations.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/12/04/europe-will-act-only-when-russia-causes-disaster-chatham-house-fellow/
Hope Keir Giles is too pessimistic.
Putin sabotaging undersea comms cables in the Baltic and sabotaging a DHL cargo plane probably changed the calculus in parts of Europe.
Honestly I think these moves made Western European nations far more likely to provide far more military support to Ukraine, while giving Putin essentially no benefit. Very bad moves. But Putin's making a lot of bad moves lately.
Talk about a low bar for Europe to exceed your expectations. How about Europe tells Trump it is unacceptable to reward Putin for his imperial war by placing his forces closer to Poland and the Baltic States this time on some legitimate basis backed by our supposed ally USA. How about we tell Trump the world has changed and now Poland Sweden and Finland know what Russia is that any deal has to be good for those neighbours of Russia not some lackey state thousands of miles away across an ocean or two. How about we in Europe decide we are better than Trump and the 76m+ idiots with no moral compass who voted for him and that we will go it alone with real allies to fight for freedom ours and Ukrainians if that's what it takes. Europe is strong enough militarily to face Russia. It just needs to believe in itself more and require its leaders t find a backbone.
Dead right! Some spine required. Ukraine is not giving up whatever Trump says or does. The war is existential and will only end when Putin ends. It is not a Trump or US decision. New world order!
I agree--but if Trump and the EUropeans wont provide military aid, Ukraine might have to accept some deal. I would like to think the European states would do the right think, just not convinced.
Spine in high demand, absolutely. New world order too. First we will have to endure the death throes of the old order which is unlikely to be pretty. Trump is a singularity for sure, but also a manifestation of strong populist (for lack of better term) undercurrents that will not disappear with him. FWIW it seems to me that the best hope is for Ukraine to somehow stay afloat until Russia collapses from within.
Are spine transplants a thing?
Unfortunately I don't think it will end with the end of Putin. This is what the Russians want. They want it now, just as they have for hundreds of years
I'm looking. For the collapse of the Russian economy. That's the only thing that will stop them, unless the Europeans put boots on the ground or China pulls Putin's leash because it's bad for China's trading
Hi Brian--so far they seem to be going the opposite way--bending over backwards to say that they can work with Trump. I think they will continue to do so as long as Trump says he will stay in NATO
Great analysis. The key proposal, which I'm delighted you are pushing forward (why hasn't everybody??) is boots on the ground inside Ukraine. Churchill reportedly said that all he needed to defend Europe was one American soldier, "preferably dead." EU soldiers near the cease-fire line should be the sine qua non for a cease-fire. Of course they might run away (Srebrenica) but it may be, as you say, the best chance.
If NATO is off the table for Ukraine (and I fear it is as long as Trump is president), than European troops becomes the next best thing.
I think we have to view the negotiation as a deal between Putin & Trump.
Sorry for the spam repeat link, but Stefan Korshak analyzed how daunting it would be to credibly police a DMZ. What countries are going to place their troops at risk in this giant & shaky ceasefire zones?
https://substack.com/home/post/p-152357509
BTW, JD Vance is a big proponent of creating a DMZ. That tells you how unserious the implementation will be. Its just a fig leaf for a surrender to Putin.
The problem with all those plans is that Trump does not have the ability to impose his will even on Ukraine, let alone Russia.
Bingo. Trump can't even impose his will on the *US*. Why would Ukraine do what he wants? Why would Russia do what he wants?
Bleak, but accurate. The dirty secret is that the establishment types on both sides of the Atlantic are largely in agreement on the basics of the Trump plan. This is obvious to anyone who reads the NY Times, for instance. They all want Ukraine to be "realistic" and cede people, er, territory.
Of course, Trump will do more to screw Ukraine, faster and harder. In addition to your points I'd add: immediate cessation of intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Trump bro Elon Musk shutting down Starlink over Ukraine (devastating for the AFU). No more spare parts for US equipment.
However, looking at what's happening in Syria and Georgia, I wonder whether there still may be surprises in store? Maybe someone can still convince Trump that Russia is in bed with China and Iran and N Korea and is, in fact, an enemy of the US? No, what am I thinking, Trump just wants to declare victory and collect his Nobel prize.
Syria is showing that Russia remains a weaker and overstretched power than people realize--and Ukraine can win if aided to fight properly.
Agreed, but the chances of Ukraine receiving that aid are slim. I notice at least one big thing missing in the new "Jake Sullivan" aid package: JASSMs. Ukraine is just getting to the place where it has enough F-16s to get more offense going but the actual "game changer" there would be JASSMs. So far, no joy from the Biden admin.
Great article. Only thing not mentioned is which EU nations might step up to provide feet-on-the-ground military assistance. I see only two or three possibilities: England, Poland and Italy. Think France and Germany are like the USA and not dependable.
WOuld be surprised if Italy did it over France. Macron might, to show France is a European leader.
Assuming at least some European leaders of significant importance want to act to help Ukraine by placing troops inside Ukraine in a defensive role, allowing the Ukrainians to hold or reclaim their territory, questions are:
- who might lead a coalition of the willing. Starmer or Macron as countries with nuclear deterrence?
- if some European troops were stationed in Ukraine and were killed in large numbers, say with ICBMs, what would be the response and how might that affect domestic/ international politics.
If we accept the economic analysis from Mr Pavelyev, then this strategy alongside full-on supply of additional arms from non involved european states, may, just may, be enough to create such economic hardship for ordinary russians, that the material costs exceed the existential benefits.
I do sincerely hope this is what Rutter is trying to negotiate now. It will need a major surge in courage, leadership, rhetoric, public support and action.
The troops into Ukraine situation would probably require 3 of Europe's big 4 (UK, France and Poland). Hard to see Germany joining. Those first three could lead a coalition of the willing, however.
The DHL plane being sabotaged may make a difference to German opinion.
Agree. Pray.
Truly a sad and disappointing coda to Pax Americana. There is good chance that with Germany and now unsettled France in the lead, Europe will go supine and grovel. If this is the case, no matter what the contours of the Ukraine settlement, security uncertainty will ensue as the rest of Europe will be now vulnerable to Putin's inflated ego and alliance with Trump.
European grovelling to the USA is my fear.
There is a strong smell of appeasement in the air.
Yep