Tomorrow on 15 August a very important meeting will take place that could impact the war in Ukraine. There has been much death and dying there since Russia invaded Ukraine in the Winter of 2022. Now both sides have fallen into what is called “positional warfare” whereby the opponents are pounding one another with artillery and armed drones, otherwise known as unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).
When the war began, some pseudo-military experts quickly proclaimed the Russians would triumph in a matter of days. They were wrong within weeks, that stretched into months, and now spans three years. For those with actual knowledge of the stalwart nature of Ukrainians, coupled with the capability of modern weapons from the US and NATO, a reversal of Russian fortunes was always a distinct possibility. This was particularly so given the absolutely mindless way the Russians pursued their initial invasion strategy on three fronts, one from the north and two in the east.
In short order, the Ukrainians using US and NATO top-attack anti-tank weapons devastated the Russian axis from the north toward Kyiv. It was shooting gallery and Russian casualties were significant. In time the Ukrainians reduced the northern axis and refocused on dealing with the Russians in the northeast. Remarkable, they continued to retake land in that sector with audacious efforts that resulted in a collapse of Russian efforts across the front.
Yet Russia would continue to fight and seize several major port cities and industrial areas along the Sea of Azov. Coupled with an initial hesitation by the Biden Administration to provide Ukraine with sufficient artillery and aircraft, the Russians benefited and held on to much of the Donbas, an area populated by Ukrainian ethnic Russians. When the US began providing needed artillery, Ukraine staged a major success in the southeastern region of the country and pushed Russia back across the Dnieper River near Kherson. Nevertheless, Russia has held on in the east, where today they are engaged in a slugfest with Ukrainian forces in what has devolved into a defensive war where each side engages in a contest of inches, resulting in much loss of blood and treasure.
President Donald Trump wants to stop that and on Friday he will try to convince the Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin, to do so. Some context is needed here.
First, Russian officials insist that their objectives in Ukraine remain unchanged ahead of the Alaska summit. That is evidence that they remain unserious about ending the war.
Second, the Trump administration has made it very clear that the US will not pursue any agreements with Russia regarding a peace settlement in Ukraine without an immediate ceasefire and the formal involvement of Ukraine in the peace negotiations.
Third, President Trump reiterated that the US is very serious about facilitating negotiations and warned that Russia would face “very severe consequences” if Putin refuses to engage in serious peace talks with Ukraine after the Alaska summit.
Finally, the Kremlin is using the Alaska summit to portray Putin as the leader of a world power equal to the US. Putin also wants to show he is Trump’s equal. He isn’t.
So what can we expect from this event, which is more akin to a military meeting engagement rather than a deliberate operational plan? Indeed, traditional summits usually involve a potential deal that is likely to emerge after the two leaders meet and converse. However, to be sure, there is nothing traditional about how President Trump engages in diplomacy. Nor is there an agreement that is discernable going into this summit. That does not mean something of benefit will not derive from the conference at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, a prominent US military facility in Alaska.
What can we expect as a result of this engagement? Beyond two world leaders meeting on US soil, it is not clear. The most likely best result would be an unconditional 30-day ceasefire that will permit talks to proceed toward a peace settlement. Unfortunately, even if a ceasefire should occur, Putin’s record in observing them is consistent. He doesn’t. Indeed, as I wrote in Yanks in Blue Berets about the nature of ceasefires in Southern Lebanon, they were “actually fragile periods of attenuated violence.” For Putin, they have been largely ignored even while targeting civilians.
For those who expect a deal to settle territorial disputes, without Ukraine at the table that is highly unlikely.
That leaves this. Trump could wind up walking away if Putin doesn’t agree to a ceasefire. That would be appropriate, followed by the imposition of painful sanctions on Russia’s already failing economy.
And that is something that should have occurred months ago. Russia enters negotiations with this view: “What is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable.” They need a new reality, and pain should be its central feature.
0 Comments