More on Ukraine and Peace
The implied pressure from any NATO position on Ukraine that differs at all from that of Ukraine is inescapable. NATO and Ukraine are bound at the hip, with the latter clearly in a subordinate position. This is not great for Ukraine, but it could not be otherwise. Ukraine is in the wrong place at the wrong time, so it sucks to be them.
Personally I'm not so worried about nukes and escalation. That situation is hard to imagine. The likelihood of this just grinding on indefinitely is more to the point. I've been saying Ukraine deserves to decide how much pain it can endure, but we via NATO are still sponsoring that pain, and from a safe distance.
Forecasts of the impact on Russia aggression are unconvincing. This conflict is chewing up their economy, so they have a great stake in a timely resolution. A peace initiative need not succumb to appeasement and does not enhance their bargaining position. In an important sense, they have already lost. (Military exposed as inept, NATO expanding along their border)
Nobody was too torqued off after a bit by the incorporation of Crimea, so that status quo ante seems tolerable. The territory in the east is a different matter, but damage to the rest of the country in the form of long-distance bombardment from Russia continues. So the question still comes back to us. For how long do we want to sponsor this?
Of necessity for internal political reasons, both Ukraine and Russia adopt maximalist positions. Those are routine in advance of compromises. Each side tries to set the goalposts to its advantage. But compromises remain possible, if they provide benefits to both sides.
The threat of a Chinese Cold War continues to warm up, so it's a good time to try and dial things down a bit.
If you needed another reason to be sympathetic to the Progressive Caucus initiative, it has been attacked from two different quarters. One is that foreign policy genius William Kristol, of Iraq war fame. The other is my ex-friend Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos. Markos’s dirty little secret is that he has always been against progressive caucus types, so his ridiculous likening of them to MAGA makes more sense.
Ukraine is an actor in this war, as is NATO. Russia is not an actor. Russian actions are determined by Vladimir Putin and a small coterie around him. Putin doesn't care about "Russian interests," as you or I might define them. As far as I can tell, Putin wants Russia to be a GREAT POWER. Since Russia is a gas station with nuclear missiles, it has no economic, diplomatic, or cultural heft. That leaves thuggery and domination as its pathway to GREAT POWER status. Putin's interests, then, are inconsistent with any degree of Ukrainian independence, even if Ukraine gives up some pre-2014 land. I can't see any overlap of interests until Putin is out of power.
Once Putin gets rusticated, maybe some deal involving territorial concessions from Ukraine? (De facto NATO status for Ukraine is the necessary quid pro quo.) This would depend on the new management, of course. Crimea? Sure. Immunity from the Hague? Yuck, ok. But as long as the war is about Vlad's little schmekl, I see nothing but continued bloodshed. It's not in the US interest to give Vladdie a stiffie. Nor anybody else's interest, for that matter.
China is very different. China is already a Great Power, and needn't thug itself to a simulacrum of that status. With China, we definitely want to lower the temperature.