Let me draw your attention to an op-ed written by William Galston appearing in The Wall Street Journal on January 2, 20241.
The Washington Post story Galston is referring to is Ukraine Marines recount deadly mission to free towns east of Dnieper River written by Lizzie Johnson and Serhii Korolchuk, a local producer for The Washington Post, which is contemplating the closure of their Kyiv bureau because, er, they are running out of money and are clueless. The last thing you want to do these days is write an op-ed about Ukraine based on a story by Lizzie and Serhii, especially if your expertise on Ukraine is zilch.
So much for Galston’s ceasefire argument.
As of this writing, it does not look likely that the US Congress will cough up and pass a compromise bill that secures the southern border and provides assistance to Ukraine.
According to Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine has only one plan — to push Russia out of Ukraine. There is no Plan B, he says.
Plan A is for Ukraine to receive what it needs to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Plan A was never fully implemented, we recall, because our benefactors feared Putin would blow up the world. Ukraine, which was warned by Team USA months in advance that Russia would invade, in 2022 successfully prevented the capture Kyiv, but in 2023 was unable to liberate areas in Lukhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions. Crimea also remains Russia-occupied.
Some may ask, “What does the southern border have to do with providing assistance to Ukraine?” The answer: the 2024 US presidential election.
So, we’re left with Russia shooting missiles at Ukraine, and Ukraine shooting missiles at Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has many more of missiles than Ukraine, according to The Wall Street Journal, which on January 4 reported that Moscow plans on taking delivery of ballistic missiles from Iran and has already received same from North Korea2.
This is not good news. North Korea + Iran + Russia against Ukraine is not a fair fight.
Practicing philosopher Volodymyr Pastukhov offers his opinion about what’s in store:
The year 2024 promises to be a year of paradoxes for Russia and Ukraine. The most expected scenario for the development of events is at the same time the least probable scenario. In the coming year, we will all have to live within the paranoia of waiting for an inevitably impossible event.
This event, which seems inevitable and seemingly impossible, is, of course, a separate agreement between Russia and the United States (the West) on a truce, bypassing and at the expense of Ukraine - let’s call a spade a spade.
The negotiations are whispered about on every European corner, and therefore it is stupid to continue to pretend that nothing is happening. All external signs indicate that Russia and the United States are eyeing precisely this option for the development of the situation, both for tactical and strategic reasons.
Moscow's hints that, in principle, it could be satisfied with the division of Ukraine along the line where the front currently lies, and the obvious refusal of the United States (and allies) to invest in a long-term (ten years or more) program to expand the production of conventional weapons (namely those with which the Ukrainian Armed Forces are fighting), without which all the talk about long-term support for Ukraine will remain talk, indicate that the parties keep their negotiating position in relations with each other open.
Tactically, both Putin and Biden need to respond to the growth of anti-war sentiment in society. Although this growth is asymmetrical, and the nature of the growing anti-war sentiment in Russia and the West is completely different, one way or another, it is politically recorded as a problem in both Moscow and Washington. In the year of elections, even such a fictitious one as Putin’s, this is important. There is nothing much to say about Biden: he urgently needs before the summer to give a conceptual answer to Trump, who promises Americans to end this “expensive war” in one day.
Strategically, both sides ran into a reality that unpleasantly exceeded their expectations. Kyiv did not fall in two days, but Moscow did not collapse in two years. Further uncontrolled “butting” is fraught with the emergence of poorly managed risks. In addition, both sides achieved their basic goals: the red lines at both ends are clearly marked. Putin has erased his aplomb for Ukraine, and an attack on NATO countries at this stage seems a much less likely option than two years ago. Biden has lost his illusions about India and China — the prospect of economic strangulation of Russia after two years of “inaction” of sanctions seems increasingly vague.
In this huge barrel of “peaceful honey,” one fly in the ointment has been lost — the interests of Ukraine. It does not appear that Ukraine is ready to accept its fate in silence. And we are not talking only about Zelensky, for whom the beginning of the negotiation process practically means political death, but specifically about the attitude of the people, who, no matter what, are not ready to accept the concept of a humiliating peace in exchange for the prospect of building a bright independent future in torment and deprivation. This is the Ukrainian objective reality, given to Moscow and Washington in very unpleasant sensations, which cannot be ignored.
In this struggle between the trend and Ukraine, I intuitively bet on Ukraine. I believe that Kyiv will take the only possible path in this situation — it will provoke a worsening of the situation in such a way as to reverse the trend of European public opinion towards the routinization of the war in Ukraine. Russia will also respond to this in the only way possible for it, provoking provocations in order to create a directly opposite effect on the same European public opinion. I have a bad feeling that the “year of meat assaults” is being replaced by a “year of provocations,” which, in the end, may turn out to be just as bloody.
Like Volodymyr, I intuitively bet on Ukraine, despite the fact that the country’s political leaders have proved themselves, over and over again, to be inept.
Which brings me to Ukraine’s inept cheerleaders:
The movie sucks. Sean is in love with himself and Z is also in love with himself. I posted something semi-coherent the other day about why understanding the value of using celebrity to carry a message as much as these two lovers do drives me nuts.
Ukraine May Have to Accept a Cease-Fire. The good news is it would open the door to eventual EU and NATO membership (The Wall Street Journal, January 2, 2024)
Russia Moves Forward With Plans to Buy Iranian Ballistic Missiles. Moscow in recent weeks has also begun receiving ballistic missiles from North Korea (The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2024)