There’s a lot of hand wringing now that President Trump is trying to negotiate a peace between Russia and Ukraine. He’s being accused of taking the side of Russia. He’s allegedly changing/abandoning decades old European/American defense concepts. Lots of verbal rattling going on. It will certainly be interesting to see if the killing can be stopped. One question might be to ask what is the traditional defense concept that may be changed by these peace negotiations?
Our last president famously said we’d support Ukraine for as long as it takes. We sent that country a lot of weapons. Some not in a timely fashion and others in slow increments of usefulness. (Guns that shoot 8 miles but not 9.7 miles…or old but not new tanks/planes….or attacks that don’t cross the border and then later maybe by 10-15-30 miles across the boundry??) All for as long as it takes. Lots of young men and women have died in battle. As long as it takes; keep grinding. One million lost? Dead or dead and wounded combined? Hard number to count either way. As long as it takes.
After the White House blowup between President Trump and President Zelinsky the news media quickly shifted to shock and dismay that Ukraine was being betrayed. The world order was being torn apart. What happened to the as long as it takes policy? Not to worry. Papa saw an inerview a few days later with an Europen leader and darn if he didn’t use the as long as it takes line. It might be one thing to say as long as it takes if there is a clear objective. As in defeating an enemy or tossing invading forces back across a border. What is the objective of pledging not to use our troops but supply one side so that that side is not overly disadvantaged? An effort to balance arms between the warring parties so neither gets too much of an upper hand. The US policy was to supply the means to keep the fighting and dying at a steady pace. Or, so it seemed. As long as it takes.
It is hard to know what the US policy might have been if push had come to shove. As long as it takes sounds determined but it’s hard to take seriously when spoken by a guy who helped lead the charge to abandon Free Vietnam. Or, abandoned the people, especially the women, of Afgahanistan. Yet, a cold war mentality supplied the necessary materials to keep the meat grinder in Ukraine fed. Cannon fodder anyone? Shades of World War One. ( Watch the movie “Paths of Glory” for insight into that conflict’s state of mind. )
It was an odd mixture of standing up to the bad guy without getting a bloody nose for the USA. Unspoken but obvious is that the bad guy has nukes. It’s not just a bloody nose we face. Which makes a negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine viable despite being repulsive to the concept that good should triumph over evil. No doubt that Russia is the bad guy. But, so were the Communists in North Korea and North Vietnam as were the Soviets in East Germany. Unsatisfying truces/settlements/acceptance is not a new concept for America. The active war and killing did stop at least in prior conflicts no matter that a sense of justice eluded the good guys. There are nukes in the hands of bad guys that tempers/restrains actions. Only time will tell if Trump’s negotiations will work. If the killing stops and a truce is sustained it will be up to historians to debate who got the better of the other guy. Many will be happy that the killing stops. Others may argue that ongoing war is justified to obtain justice. Or, more favorable lines on a map.
Papa does wonder at times if Europe has stood on principles of justice too often in the past. 30 years war? 100 years war? They actually happened in Europe where borders often floated back and forth between nations/principalities/kingdoms/empires and invading hordes. I often think of the poor peasants who might have needed to swear alligence to 2 or 3 different despots in a lifetime. War followed by peace and then more map drawing. How many lives need be lost for the principle that Crimea is an entity of deep rooted Ukrainian or Rusian blood? (More Tatar may be more accurate.) European Poo-Bahs seemed to have an inate ability to fight at the drop of a hat. They were also quite creative in he naming of their peace treaties. Who can forget the “Treaty Of Eternal Peace?”
Fingers crossed for peace. However, it is difficult to ignore that Russia’s Putin appears locked in an European mindset of 100-200 years ago. Balance of power. Spheres of influence. Illusions of grand power. Not too sure that without US power the other European leaders are up to date either. They seemed to have been played by Putin in the last 20 years or so. Germany especially marches as if it made a grand bargain on oil and gas. It will be interesting to see if Europe can fend for themselves if the big stick of America is pulled back. Papa always jokes that he hates change. (Especially with packaging.) I admit it is hard to resist the impulse for the US to use force against a bad guy. However, the US feeding weapons to others who will then die conjures up a sense of resistance also. Time will tell if a third path that may vey well contain distasteful concessions ends the war. At least for now, the world may come face to face with change that involves the potential shift in US foreign policy. Unless “it” is defined it may be wise to change from a policy of for as long as ” it” takes.
(BTW: Papa is aware of even longer wars….600 to 700 years on Iberian Peninsula?)