How are we going to find an exit?
Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose
CNN Meanwhile in America, January 24, 2023
An email from a reader in Australia got us thinking about the West’s expanding effort to defeat Russia in Ukraine, as the brutal invasion approaches its one-year anniversary.
The reader called for more anti-war skepticism in press reporting, and argued that “piling it on with weapons” is the wrong answer, since Putin would never surrender in Ukraine. Others question whether the West’s escalation of its strategy to arm Ukraine is destined to create an even bloodier stalemate. Already the trench warfare of frozen frontlines in eastern Ukraine and the merciless Russian bombing of Ukrainian cities recalls dark historic echoes from 20th century total warfare, and there’s no meaningful international diplomatic effort even to forge a ceasefire.
Strategists warn of a new Russian spring offensive while the West debates whether a swift influx of missiles, tanks, artillery and defensive weapons could help Ukraine push Russia out. Many more civilians are likely to die, along with young troops and young Russians being used as cannon fodder by President Vladimir Putin.
So why not try to stop the war before it lasts another year?
To begin with, Ukraine is committed to defending every last inch of its territory. And though Kyiv has said it’s open to talks, it doesn’t trust Putin and won’t accept any semblance of victory for the Russian strongman. Western leaders meanwhile fear the broader consequences if Ukraine loses; allowing a large authoritarian state to crush a small democracy would set a dangerous precedent and make Europe far less stable and secure. They also reason that stopping the flow of weapons to support Ukraine would allow Putin a quick victory and shatter NATO’s credibility. So it’s hard to imagine any peace that would be simultaneously palatable to Russia, Ukraine, and the West.
Yet, the longer the war drags on and the deadlier the weapons poured into Ukraine by allies, the greater the risk of a spillover clash between NATO and Russia. “Shouldn’t we now ask ourselves how we are going to find an exit from this war?” asked former senior French politician and diplomat Pierre Lellouche, in a commentary in “Le Monde” last week : He warned of “an immense frozen conflict on the Old Continent” and that the allies were sliding into anti-Russia belligerence and increasingly direct confrontation with Moscow.
Such voices are often drowned out in American media coverage driven by political hawks and retired generals who came up during the Cold War. A group of progressive Democrats was shouted down last year when they suggested President Joe Biden should negotiate an end to the war. Hardline House Republicans are also increasingly skeptical about the war: they want to keep US billions at home.
Still, the top US General Mark Milley caused a stir last year when he suggested that it would be hard for Ukraine to fully vanquish Russia and that eventually it might have to think about a political solution — though he later walked it back.
These views are not yet approaching critical mass. But the question posed by our correspondent and many others is ineluctable: How many more thousands need to die before the war ends.
