I don't think that the west wants to help Ukraine defeat Russia in war, for the simple reason that if that was the objective then it would have happened by now. So I suggest that the west's objective has been for Ukraine to keep Russia occupied and drain it of resources, preventing Putin from making trouble closer to home. A frustrated and preoccupied Russia is likely less dangerous to those of us outside Ukraine than a defeated one. Am I missing something significant in this framing? If not, what would be the end goal here?
Definitely some merit in this theory. I believe that the hedging was done because they were afraid of escalation and had severely overestimated Russia’s military capabilities. While Biden has been onside with keeping military aid flowing I think you are correct that it only ever seemed adequate for a tie and not an outright victory. If Trump wins the presidency then all bets are off. Unless there’s some kind of over under bet on chaos reigning supreme. Easy money.
Not a very sustainable stragegy frankly - and very very cynical. I don't buy it. Most of the rests of the world is afraid of Russia in a couple of ways:
i) going nuclear and/or
ii) falling into 50 squabbling republics, making the Balkans look like a walk in the park.
Good question. Russia is not being attacked. No reason to want Russia to fall apart. But many reasons not to give Russia (and other would-be mini Russias) believe that they can get away with this kind of behaviour.
By what measure do you feel Victory "would have happened by now"? This suggests that some sort of inevitability rules history/events, a thesis which I do not believe is supported by past events. The lesson of the past two years underlines the superiority of defence over offence, and much TIME will be needed to penetrate Russian lines (and minefields). The Russians wrote the book on defence in depth, as demonstrated by the Battle of Kursk in WW2, and they have not forgotten the lessons learned. The costs Ukraine is imposing on the Russians now as they attack, are likely to be paid in a Ukrainian assault, unless MUCH more assistance, in the form of artillery (guns and rockets) is provided, and Air Superiority is achieved. This war is going to go on for some time, but there is no doubt it can be won by Ukraine. The rest of us need to show some spine and realize how much we owe the Ukrainians!
The wobble in Western willingness to stand up to Russian aggression puts one in mind of the pusillanimity of the pre-Churchill British cabinet who seemed much too willing to settle with Hitler and sue for peace. And that was at a time when the UK had already paid an enormous butcher's bill in combat deaths and loss of treasure.
Europe (and Canada) need to recognize that they hold the capacity, financial and military, to readily see off Russia if necessary, and will pay a far greater price, in all respects, if they fail to stand up NOW.
On a similar note, perhaps Trump's posturing about nations which fail to "pay up" will induce our timorous nations to ante up and support our collective security as they have, for decades, promised to do, but consistently failed to deliver on. Not looking forward to the tax bill, but I am certain it will be far less than the one we will pay if we are attacked and need to respond from a position of self-induced weakness.
What is to stop say South African from determining that Canada position on Israel isn’t severe enough and freezing and liquifying our assets in their country. Dangerous game we are about to play.
Thank you for this informative article, and this is why I subscribe. I’ve been wondering what the hold-up was regarding the russian money, and would appreciate a little more detail on what the European concerns are. I’m a strong supporter of standing behind Ukraine. So many geopolitical justifications, besides squashing putin … if it’s not too late. What a world it will be if the west bends a knee to the kremlin and opens the door to russian, chinese, iranian and north korean puffed-up confidence and disdain for the “crumbing” west.
I think your "western banks" includes Japan, Korea - you really mean "democracies integrated into the international banking system"?
Consider their alternatives. The bank of Namibia? They are in "western" banks to start with, because of all the business they do with the countries they bank in. If they didn't need the money in European and American banks, it would of course be in a tax-shelter country.
“Following Canada’s lead. . .” There are three words you don’t see every day.
A lien against assets forreparations maybe best route. Mother Russia only understands muscle under this regime!
I don't think that the west wants to help Ukraine defeat Russia in war, for the simple reason that if that was the objective then it would have happened by now. So I suggest that the west's objective has been for Ukraine to keep Russia occupied and drain it of resources, preventing Putin from making trouble closer to home. A frustrated and preoccupied Russia is likely less dangerous to those of us outside Ukraine than a defeated one. Am I missing something significant in this framing? If not, what would be the end goal here?
Definitely some merit in this theory. I believe that the hedging was done because they were afraid of escalation and had severely overestimated Russia’s military capabilities. While Biden has been onside with keeping military aid flowing I think you are correct that it only ever seemed adequate for a tie and not an outright victory. If Trump wins the presidency then all bets are off. Unless there’s some kind of over under bet on chaos reigning supreme. Easy money.
Don't forget that it was Trump who first gave the Ukraine arms and that was after Crimea but before the latest invasion.
And I think the West hopes that the Russian people or a power cabal dumps Putin.
Not a very sustainable stragegy frankly - and very very cynical. I don't buy it. Most of the rests of the world is afraid of Russia in a couple of ways:
i) going nuclear and/or
ii) falling into 50 squabbling republics, making the Balkans look like a walk in the park.
Well I agree that it's cynical but don't you think a victory for Ukraine makes those fears that you cite more likely to happen?
Good question. Russia is not being attacked. No reason to want Russia to fall apart. But many reasons not to give Russia (and other would-be mini Russias) believe that they can get away with this kind of behaviour.
By what measure do you feel Victory "would have happened by now"? This suggests that some sort of inevitability rules history/events, a thesis which I do not believe is supported by past events. The lesson of the past two years underlines the superiority of defence over offence, and much TIME will be needed to penetrate Russian lines (and minefields). The Russians wrote the book on defence in depth, as demonstrated by the Battle of Kursk in WW2, and they have not forgotten the lessons learned. The costs Ukraine is imposing on the Russians now as they attack, are likely to be paid in a Ukrainian assault, unless MUCH more assistance, in the form of artillery (guns and rockets) is provided, and Air Superiority is achieved. This war is going to go on for some time, but there is no doubt it can be won by Ukraine. The rest of us need to show some spine and realize how much we owe the Ukrainians!
and Russia is just gonna sit back and let it slide? Sure.
Glad some serious technical thought is being given to this. Those funds need to be leveraged, one way or another, to support Ukraine.
The wobble in Western willingness to stand up to Russian aggression puts one in mind of the pusillanimity of the pre-Churchill British cabinet who seemed much too willing to settle with Hitler and sue for peace. And that was at a time when the UK had already paid an enormous butcher's bill in combat deaths and loss of treasure.
Europe (and Canada) need to recognize that they hold the capacity, financial and military, to readily see off Russia if necessary, and will pay a far greater price, in all respects, if they fail to stand up NOW.
On a similar note, perhaps Trump's posturing about nations which fail to "pay up" will induce our timorous nations to ante up and support our collective security as they have, for decades, promised to do, but consistently failed to deliver on. Not looking forward to the tax bill, but I am certain it will be far less than the one we will pay if we are attacked and need to respond from a position of self-induced weakness.
Three Hundred Billion is a good start.
What is to stop say South African from determining that Canada position on Israel isn’t severe enough and freezing and liquifying our assets in their country. Dangerous game we are about to play.
Does no one see the parallel between what was done to Navalny by Russian and what is being done to Assange by the UK and the USA?
Amazing.. greed always trumps war in our civilized society..
Thank you for this informative article, and this is why I subscribe. I’ve been wondering what the hold-up was regarding the russian money, and would appreciate a little more detail on what the European concerns are. I’m a strong supporter of standing behind Ukraine. So many geopolitical justifications, besides squashing putin … if it’s not too late. What a world it will be if the west bends a knee to the kremlin and opens the door to russian, chinese, iranian and north korean puffed-up confidence and disdain for the “crumbing” west.
Sudden? Unexplained? I don't think so. Just look at the other news that happened today, and see what else happened that this distracts from.
I think your "western banks" includes Japan, Korea - you really mean "democracies integrated into the international banking system"?
Consider their alternatives. The bank of Namibia? They are in "western" banks to start with, because of all the business they do with the countries they bank in. If they didn't need the money in European and American banks, it would of course be in a tax-shelter country.