It had the feeling a dead soul had been resurrected to see Kissinger, albeit on a monitor, at the World Economic Forum at Davos. the old goat might be considered the godfather of Realpolitik, at least the oldest living practitioner of it at 98. This was the driving force during the Cold War when the US and Europe tried to find a way to lessen hostilities with the Soviet Union and stave off Nuclear Armageddon. Of course, all that changed in 1989 when the Berlin wall came down, followed by the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, without a single nuclear weapon being fired. However, Kissinger is still pitching his old ideas, believing Ukraine represents a bridge to Russia, and if we close it off, we face another Cold War, with Russia once again isolated from the Western world.
Garry Kasparov offered a counter argument at a recent conference in Vilnius organized by the Free Russia Forum. He believes that the only way to have peace is to defeat Putin. Any further attempts at appeasement only embolden Putin and prolong the war. Kasparov sees the sanctions as working and that Putin cannot sustain the war much longer given his massive economic and physical investment. There is no draw in war, Kasparov said. It will end in victory for one side or the other. What side do we want to be on?
Of course, Kissinger would never subscribe to such a view as he believes all things are negotiable. That seems to be the attitude Macron and other Western European leaders are taking as well, determined to keep their channels open to the Kremlin with the hope they can work something out. This despite an evermore recalcitrant Putin upping the ante each time.
Ukraine has rejected most of the conditions that have been offered because it would lose much of its territorial integrity. No government could survive such a negotiated compromise, and that is precisely what Putin wants. If Zelenskyy is forced to give up the entirety of Donbas region, Kherson and other currently Russian-occupied territories, he would lose the trust of his people. They have stuck with him precisely because he refused to concede these losses. Some in the West may view this as amateurish or even childish. But, this is not some election you refuse to concede. This is a war, and to admit defeat is not something any world leader would dream of doing if put in this situation.
So, how do we get past this impasse? The most simple solution would be to take down Putin's army at its weakest. He's already lost an estimated 40 per cent of his munitions in this war. NATO countries have a massive arsenal that could take out the remainder of his fleet and destroy his military installations in Crimea. At that point, Russia would have no means of fortified its positions, and the Ukrainian forces could roll over the stranded army.
Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen because NATO fears the nuclear specter that Putin has raised, and doesn't want to put its countries in jeopardy of a nuclear attack. That means we continue to supply Ukraine with munitions, hoping to wear down Russian forces to the point the Kremlin is left with no choice but to negotiate a settlement that would restore much of Ukraine's territorial integrity. The problem with the second option is that it prolongs the war indefinitely as Putin will not be willing to make such concessions, as he believes his political survival depends on winning this war.
My wife heard a more extensive interview with Kasparov in which he said Putin will never let go of Ukraine on his own volition. Kasparov cited the deep historical reasons that weigh heavy on Putin's mind. In a nutshell, Putin has modeled himself after Genghis Khan, and will continue to make his slow gradual march through Eastern Europe until he has reestablished the boundaries of Imperial Russia. He is a Mongol at heart, and doesn't understand European democracy, much less the realpolitik that emerged in the 20th century. Putin is mired in his antiquated view of the world.
The only hope is a victory in Ukraine, as these are a people who understand democracy. They are European at heart. A victory would also force the disintegration of Russia, as there are many Russians who feel the same way, but are currently held under the yoke of the Kremlin. Kasparov believes there would be a sweeping revolution through the country that would see new democracies emerge in the near future. The chess master wouldn't let himself be pinned to specifically when, but said it is inevitable.
Unfortunately, that would bring chaos with it, and if there is anything the financiers of the world markets fear most it is chaos and instability. They weren't very anxious to see the Soviet Union collapse, and they certainly don't want to imagine what will happen if Russia collapses. So, they would rather keep the current alignments, as they have learned to deal with them. This is why Kissinger's comments came as a soothing balm to those gathered at Davos. If only clearer heads prevailed.
The only problem here is that Russia will never be content with just the Donbas and Crimea. The Kremlin wants all of the eastern half of Ukraine, taking Kyiv with it. You ask why? The reason is simple. This area represents the spiritual heart of the Russia soul. It was Kievan Rus at one time, but no matter, it is Russian now.
Lviv was always seen as western, fought over by Western empires. Russia is willing to concede western Ukraine, even talked about dividing it up between Poland and Hungary, as if we were back in the 18th century at the time of the infamous partitions. A further indication where Putin's mind is.
So, you can try to negotiate a settlement with the Kremlin but that won't stop Putin's imperial ambitions. Such an appeasement may put him off for a little while, but Russia will be back, as we have seen repeatedly throughout Putin's reign. That is why Garry Kasparov says it is important to eliminate the source of the war.
Comments
Post a Comment