Ukraine: ’twere well it were done quickly

By Richard North - May 22, 2022

Yesterday, it was the third anniversary of Zelensky’s inauguration to the presidency of Ukraine, in commemoration of which he delivered a long interview on national television.

Of crucial and long-lasting importance, he made some observations about the war, declaring that he would consider it a victory “to advance to the February 24 line without unnecessary losses”.

This seems to contradict Maj. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov who, we recorded yesterday, wants Ukraine to return to its 1991 borders, driving the Russians completely from his country’s territory.

“We are yet to regain all territories as everything isn’t that simple”, said Zelensky. “We must look at the cost of this war and the cost of each de-occupation. I’m absolutely positive. We’ve cracked the spine of the world’s largest or one of the strongest armies. We’ve already done it, for sure. And we’ve also done it psychologically. They won’t be back on their feet for the next few years”.

This does rather simplify matters, in that it is a recognition of the limitations of the current national capabilities, with the BBC also recording that the war could only come to a conclusive halt “at the negotiating table”.

However, the view of the New York Times is somewhat different. Its Editorial Board commemorated Zelinsky’s anniversary with an editorial headed: “The War in Ukraine Is Getting Complicated, and America Isn’t Ready”.

Noting that the Senate had passed a $40 billion emergency aid package for Ukraine on Thursday, but with a small group of isolationist Republicans loudly criticising the spending and the war entering a new and complicated phase, the Board warned that continued bipartisan support was not guaranteed.

Furthermore, it said:

A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal. Though Russia’s planning and fighting have been surprisingly sloppy, Russia remains too strong, and Mr. Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the invasion to back down.

Cutting to the chase, the Board complained about “bellicose statements” from Biden, Defence Secretary Austin and Nancy Pelosi did not bring negotiations any closer. It concluded that:

In the end, it is the Ukrainians who must make the hard decisions: They are the ones fighting, dying and losing their homes to Russian aggression, and it is they who must decide what an end to the war might look like. If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand.

It reminded us that the United States and Nato had demonstrated that they would support the Ukrainian fight with ample firepower and other means. And however the fighting ends, it said, “the United States and its allies must be prepared to help Ukraine rebuild”. But, it said – and there’s always a “but”:

…as the war continues, Mr. Biden should also make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia, and limits to the arms, money and political support they can muster. It is imperative that the Ukrainian government’s decisions be based on a realistic assessment of its means and how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain.

Confronting this reality may be painful, but it is not appeasement. This is what governments are duty bound to do, not chase after an illusory “win.” Russia will be feeling the pain of isolation and debilitating economic sanctions for years to come, and Mr Putin will go down in history as a butcher. The challenge now is to shake off the euphoria, stop the taunting and focus on defining and completing the mission. America’s support for Ukraine is a test of its place in the world in the 21st century, and Mr Biden has an opportunity and an obligation to help define what that will be.

In certain ways, depending on how you read it, is along the same lines that I wrote yesterday, when I suggested that Ukraine cannot win the war, at least on the terms that Budanov set out. Effectively, in writing that – unless the western allies are prepared to support Ukraine with all the necessary means to ensure victory – there will have to be a compromise if we are ever to see a semblance of peace in the region.

Whether or not we are singing from the same hymn sheet, the NYT certainly triggered a stir in Ukraine and beyond, according to Illia Ponomarenko writing for the Kiev Independent. Coming from a media outlet that has the reputation of being supportive of US assistance to Ukraine against Russia’s invasion, it has surprised many, he wrote.

In his long article, under the heading: “Those saying Ukraine can’t win don’t understand the situation”, he interviewed the source of these words., Andriy Zagorodnyuk, former Ukrainian defence minister and now director of the Kiev-based Centre for Defence Strategies.

Zagorodnyuk thinks that Russia can be defeated and complains that many people can’t catch up with what’s happening and are still labouring under the impression that Russia “is a military superpower, an undefeated force”. But, he says, they are “weak”. Ukraine can win, he says, but this in many ways depends it being sent weapons, hardware, and munitions.

He sees “absolutely no chances for a negotiation process”. Russia has not demonstrated the slightest signs of altering its strategic goals regarding Ukraine. They keep pushing for their narratives, they keep waging the war and going offensive. There is no point talking about any sort of compromise and negotiations.

In America, for a long time, though, there has been a fear of escalating the situation into a world war. This fear is unfounded. Russia has already reached the limits of its capabilities and is “out of options”.

The New York Times editorial board, Zagorodnyuk says, seems to have this outdated understanding of who we are facing. There won’t be a nuclear war, no conflict acceleration or escalation. Just because Russia has no strength for that.

Zagorodnyuk commends the US authorities for their strategic vision and their understanding of why the war is important. And, he says, there’s “giant popular support for Ukraine in the US Congress is united in support”. Thus, he concludes, there can’t be any compromises regarding a Ukrainian victory. There needs to be a resolute and quick action to win: “Otherwise, it’s not going to happen”.

Earlier in the interview, Zagorodnyuk had talked of the “critical mass” needed to secure victory. He asked readers to imagine a bucket of water. You can just pour the whole of the bucket onto the fire and take it down at once, he said. But you can also get a glass and try to choke the fire with small sips of water. The same amount of water, different results. We need to avoid a situation where we get assistance in small sips. It’s a critical challenge to us now – a lot of money has been allocated, and over 40 nations have joined. Now it’s very important that we as a coalition are not afraid of winning.

This is almost in the territory of the Bard and his Scottish play: “If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly”. As I argued in detail yesterday, if there is a possibility that Ukraine can defeat Russia, then the support it needs is colossal – far more than has been pledged so far,

Above and beyond materiel, though, such victories are bought with blood, and while the Nato collective can provide physical support, it will be Ukraine which will pay the butcher’s bill. And, on the offensive against a prepared enemy, the casualty rate could dwarf that so far experienced.

It is for Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to decide whether they are prepared to pay that bill – outsiders cannot make that decision for them. But, if we are expecting them to make the sacrifice, then our support must be unconditional and in full measure.

We cannot know the outcome. We cannot know whether Zagorodnyuk is right – that the Russians will not escalate, and resort to nuclear weapons. But our support implies that we accept nuclear war – however unlikely – as a potential consequence. And yet, no one will actually ask us whether this is a risk we are all prepared to take.

The NYT therefore, may be right in charging that America isn’t ready. But is anyone?