Thread by @ChristopherJM

There’s rightly been a lot of concern about and attention paid to the Russian military build-up around Ukraine, and a lot of takes — some good, some not so good, some provocative — including ~that~ Politico op-ed that says the US should shove Minsk down Kyiv’s throat...

I don’t like that for many reasons, not least b/c it denies Ukraine agency over its future, reinforces Russia’s false theory that US controls Kyiv, and, well, just wouldn’t be accepted by Ukrainians. It’s unrealistic. But the piece (politico.com/news/magazine/…) did something good…

It triggered an important discussion about the controversial Minsk accords and the ~8-year war in Ukraine more broadly. Today I’ve been catching up on some excellent and thought provoking threads by very smart people on this matter. What follows is sort of a thread of threads.

It’s always a good idea to read @APHClarkson on Ukraine. He understands the Ukrainian perspective well but I think he makes some solid points here on Putin’s calculus, too.

Then there’s @DrRadchenko, who’s got a sharp Russia-focused eye and encyclopedic Cold War knowledge. Here he considers a couple of Putin’s options and is skeptical of a fresh invasion.

You must always read analysis by @OlyaOliker. She’s got a knack for parsing the intricacies of East-West relations. Tl;dr she recommends to West, ‘stock-taking and some decisions about who’s willing to do what under various circumstances…then communicating results to Moscow.’

.@scrawnya also raises good points about how the West views Russia and vice versa, and how the former’s tired approach to Russian cyclical troop build-ups is “triggering” and has actually fueled Moscow’s actions. Time for something new.

She also points out how forcing Minsk down Ukraine’s throat will just not work. It was and remains a bad deal; it only works if Russia takes the first major steps.

In fact, everyone at least seems to agree Minsk accords are a bad deal and were signed by Ukraine with a gun to its head. I’d argue they at least worked in the short term in that they stopped serious bloodshed and more or less froze the contact line, turning the war static.

The problem of course has been that all sides have different takes on the steps in which Minsk should be implemented, so no progress. Without Russia going first in withdrawing troops, returning control of the Ukrainian border to Kyiv, or at least int’l peacekeepers, Minsk fails.

Now I’m getting into some of my own takes. Could Ukraine do some of the political provisions of Minsk as @scharap suggests in Politico? In theory, sure. In reality, not without serious internal backlash, not before the aforementioned Minsk steps by Russia. Otherwise non-starter.

I don’t know what the solution is. I think Putin will do what Putin wants to do — and I realize that’s a bit lame in terms of analysis but it’s true. This war could end if he decides it will end. Can anyone nudge him in that direction? …

Well, there are much harsher sanctions that could be applied by the West, moves against oligarchs, Russian govt, banking system… There are other things in the West’s and NATO’s tool chests that could but tried re: integration, membership. But West is apprehensive about all that.

As @andrewsweiss and @eugene_rumer wrote in this must-read piece, Ukraine is Putin’s unfinished business. There might be nothing that completely deters him there. carnegieendowment.org/2021/11/12/ukr…

And yet, I’m not certain Putin’s about to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine & that he’s prepared to accept the consequences of doing so — which will include sanctions (even if they aren’t as strong as many would like, they’ll sting some) & massive $ & loss of Russian lives.

Ukraine Brig. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov painted a grim picture of what a large-scale Russian attack could look like in this interview. (Small scoop inside too: He tells @haltman Ukraine has used US Javelins in combat. We haven’t seen footage, tho.) militarytimes.com/flashpoints/20…

The map included in @MilitaryTimes piece shows what Ukraine’s preparing for should Russia invade by land, sea, air. Other scenarios exist outside this worst-case one. In any case destruction, loss of life would be huge. Kyiv, Dnipro, Kharkiv, & Odesa cities have millions of ppl.

Here, @RALee85 gives some detail on the Russian units that'd be involved:
Budanov said if a Russian assault coming it’s likely to be in Jan/Feb after months of laying groundwork. Winter war for UA/RU isn’t an issue; recall Debaltseve battle in Jan/Feb ‘15.

Ukraine’s military is much bigger and stronger than it was in 2014. And the Ukrainian population broadly is ready to resist in whatever ways they can. The country has lived prepared for war for the last 7.5 years, after all. This would be an incredibly bloody and deadly fight.

So where to end this thread? Here I guess, without an immediate solution. Sorry. But it’s great there’s a dialogue happening and potentially new ideas to consider.

One last note for the folks who always love to bring up the ‘If Ukraine had kept its nukes…’ argument. @steven_pifer is right:

Almost forgot one for the ‘But the Budapest memo said US & UK have to defend Ukraine’ crowd: the memo itself never provided security guarantees or obligations to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It vowed to seek immediate UN Security Council action pircenter.org/media/content/…

Add this piece to the reading list.