What Does An End To the War in Ukraine Look Like?
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up below.
First, a quick reminder that I’ll be Zoomchatting today at 12:30. It’ll be a solo session, so bring your questions and libations — if you are so inclined. We can discuss the Ukraine war, and also this absolutely bonkers story about Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas. The link is here.
A Possible Off-Ramp?
An interesting tidbit in the Economist offers some hints as to what a settlement to the Ukraine war might look like.
Mariupol, once a city of 400,000, was surrounded by Russian forces from Crimea and Donbas in the first week of the war. It has fared far worse since than the other cities around which the Russians are encamped, in part because of its strategic importance—it is crucial to the establishment of a land bridge from Donbas to Crimea—in part because, unlike Kharkiv or Kyiv in the north, it is entirely encircled.
The Russian forces close to Kyiv have been held at bay for the past two weeks. Kira Rudik, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, says the capital is the “best defended place in Ukraine”. No one in the city now believes that Russian forces have the fighting power needed to take and occupy it. There are even some areas where Ukrainian troops are reported to have pushed back the invaders, though at least some of those reports have turned out not to be true.
As you can see on the map below, Mariupol is a strategically vital city because it links the Donbas region and Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. In addition, the area provides a natural land bridge from Russia to Crimea.
Up to this point, two critical Russian demands have been the formal incorporation of Crimea into Russia and either annexation or independence for Lubansk and Donetsk, which are part of Donbas. Possessing the strip of land around Mariupol would give Russia control of a contiguous land area. The capture of Mariupol and the surrounding area could lead Russia to seek a quick end to the conflict, which would likely include keeping the land bridge around Mariupol.
Of course, there are still Russian military threats to Kyiv and Kharkiv. Still, at this point, it’s getting difficult to imagine that Russia’s military forces will be able to capture either city - or are evenly likely to try. But by keeping pressure on both, they can prevent Ukraine from diverting more forces to the South and relieving the pressure on Mariupol. We’ve assumed for several weeks now that Russia’s attack on Kyiv stalled out because of supply issues. But perhaps this was an intentional decision by the Russian military.
The strategic importance of Mariupol could also explain why Ukrainian forces are putting up such fierce resistance. If the city falls, it creates a territorial fait accompli that will be difficult for Kyiv to undo at the negotiating table.
The Economist further notes that Russia’s demands currently revolve around four key points: “a declaration of Ukrainian neutrality; Ukrainian demilitarisation; formal acceptance that Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014, is Russian territory and that the Donbas region, some of which was controlled by separatists backed by Russia before the war, is independent; and relief for Russia from Western sanctions.”
The first two will depend, in large measure, on what kind of security guarantees Ukraine will get from both Russia and the West — and I would imagine demilitarization is going to be a tough nut to crack. I’ve discussed the third demand, but the fourth one increasingly feels a bit tricky. Sanctions are not supposed to be punitive, and from the outset of the conflict, they were intended to be a policy lever — namely, a tool to change Russia’s behavior. Now that the United States has accused Moscow of war crimes, lifting sanctions has become more politically difficult. Will the West now be reluctant to ease the economic pressure on a country that has so gratuitously violated international norms on the use of military force? This is no longer an open and shut case — and the fact that the White House has, as of yet, not said that sanctions would be lifted if Russia withdraws from Ukraine is telling.
What Will Zelensky Do?
There may be another wrinkle to consider: what if Ukraine concludes that they have the political and military advantage and become unwilling to make painful concessions? While Ukraine is clearly desperate to end the Russian offensive as quickly as possible, it’s not hard not to notice that Ukrainian forces are counter-attacking around Kyiv or that there are now daily press reports about Russian forces running out of supplies and facing intense morale issues.
When you combine these factors with the increasing pain of international sanctions on the Russian economy, might Zelensky conclude that time is on his side? Perhaps if Ukraine can hold out a bit longer, it will strengthen his negotiating position vis-a-vis Moscow? Considering the alternative: an uncertain peace and lost territory, it’s not hard to imagine that Zelensky is making precisely this calculation. It’s worth keeping in mind that part of the reason why Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place is because of Zelensky’s foot-dragging on implementing the Minsk II accords, which allowed for greater political independence in the Donbas region. The war in Ukraine happened, in large part, because of Kyiv’s legitimate refusal to give in to Russian demands. Politics plays a role here. Zelensky is a democratically-elected leader, and the impact of concessions to Russia to his political standing surely was a significant consideration. That’s still true now.
Of course, the longer it takes to reach an agreement, the greater likelihood that Putin adopts even more brutal tactics in the hopes of breaking Ukraine’s will. This week’s Russian missile attack on a Kyiv shopping mall might have been a preview of what’s to come.
What I’ve sketched out above would represent something less than a military or political victory for Putin. The war in Ukraine was sold as a “de-Nazification” campaign to rid Kyiv of Zelensky. That is likely not going to happen. Still, Putin could potentially sell Ukrainian territorial concessions and a pledge of Ukrainian neutrality as a win. Would that be enough to neutralize domestic backlash over the war, particularly the horrific casualties suffered by Russian troops? Hard to say, but then again, Russia is an authoritarian society.
All this means that we may be getting closer to the denouement of this conflict, in which both sides are using events on the battlefield to jockey for leverage in diplomatic negotiations. As is often the case in these types of situations, it may come down to who blinks first.
What’s Going On
If the wife of a Supreme Court justice is texting the White House Chief of Staff and urging him to overturn a free and fair election, you might not have the strongest democracy.
Read Nicholas Mulder on the impact of economic sanctions on Russia.
Sanctions on Russia are starting to hurt countries that are very far away.
Good breakdown of what’s happened so far in the Ukraine war from the New York Times.
Why calling Putin a war criminal is risky.
Musical Interlude