As the previous comments point out, a Ukrainian victory would obviously be a severe humiliation of Putin and of Russia. It is a humiliation which not only cannot be avoided, but which would and should be celebrated, since it would be a natural consequence of a just result. The fact that you attempt to deny it, while at the same time attempting to dissolve an associated illusion that there is a sustainable solution without that victory, I think simply reflects the new risks of inter-national warfare. The issue is whether and why the new risks are worth taking. Unless you address that issue, instead of pretending there is a middle ground, you are not really addressing the decisions faced by the leaders and people of the international alliance supporting Ukraine.
I have addressed this point in previous responses. I was not "pretending" there is a middle ground. I don't think it a good idea to give succour to Putin's lie that Russia is fighting against the west
Philip, an excellent piece. We should not discount that the current supply of weapons to Ukraine is the best that NATO,especially European nations, can do. As far as tanks are concerned there is likely to be an issue with the availability of Leo 2; Challenger 2 also may not be as available as we might expect, and its rifled gun is non NATO standard; is the ammunition available? As far as artillery is concerned USA is becoming concerned about the depletion of stockpiles and the state or European stocks has been perilous for decades. It is time for NATO, particularly European nations, to shift its industry and logistics onto a war footing and cease presenting the myth that support to Ukraine can be sustained from extant resources.
Thank you. It is fair to say that stocks are being depleted and will soon need to be replenished but western governments can accept low stocks as long as Russia's capabilities are being degraded in Ukraine...
I think there may be some complacency over the capacity of the European industrial base to replenish the stocks in anything like a timely manner. Time will tell.
It is correct to say that Putin will likely be humiliated by defeat. But that is not an argument for the the west to elevate that into a war aim. To do so would give credence to the lie that the war reflects Nato aggression.
Thanks, and of course I quite agree. It's just that I see the whole preoccupation with the need to 'avoid humiliating VVP' as elevating an irrelevance into a debilitating distraction.
As ever, incisive, clear analysis. One tiny quibble, Philip - you say it should not be the West's goal to 'humiliate' Putin. As someone who knows Russia very well, I agree. Humiliation could ferment further bitterness/resentment: what the Russians call 'zlost' (viz Hitler post-Versailles). However, a defeat for Putin will of necessity be humiliating. Again, the point is clarifying that it's not *the West's* goal to humiliate Putin. That goal may well be Zelensky's or even Putin's own circle. Putin deserves that humiliation, but he mustn't be allowed to accuse the West of having that sole objective.
Another analysis of the topic - https://stoev.substack.com/p/geopolitics-culture-and-justice-or. Glad to share. Respect to Philip.
As the previous comments point out, a Ukrainian victory would obviously be a severe humiliation of Putin and of Russia. It is a humiliation which not only cannot be avoided, but which would and should be celebrated, since it would be a natural consequence of a just result. The fact that you attempt to deny it, while at the same time attempting to dissolve an associated illusion that there is a sustainable solution without that victory, I think simply reflects the new risks of inter-national warfare. The issue is whether and why the new risks are worth taking. Unless you address that issue, instead of pretending there is a middle ground, you are not really addressing the decisions faced by the leaders and people of the international alliance supporting Ukraine.
I have addressed this point in previous responses. I was not "pretending" there is a middle ground. I don't think it a good idea to give succour to Putin's lie that Russia is fighting against the west
Philip, an excellent piece. We should not discount that the current supply of weapons to Ukraine is the best that NATO,especially European nations, can do. As far as tanks are concerned there is likely to be an issue with the availability of Leo 2; Challenger 2 also may not be as available as we might expect, and its rifled gun is non NATO standard; is the ammunition available? As far as artillery is concerned USA is becoming concerned about the depletion of stockpiles and the state or European stocks has been perilous for decades. It is time for NATO, particularly European nations, to shift its industry and logistics onto a war footing and cease presenting the myth that support to Ukraine can be sustained from extant resources.
Thank you. It is fair to say that stocks are being depleted and will soon need to be replenished but western governments can accept low stocks as long as Russia's capabilities are being degraded in Ukraine...
I think there may be some complacency over the capacity of the European industrial base to replenish the stocks in anything like a timely manner. Time will tell.
Bravo.
On the 'humiliation' point: it cannot be for us to assume the absurd and arrogant task of seeking to avoid humiliating Putin...
It is correct to say that Putin will likely be humiliated by defeat. But that is not an argument for the the west to elevate that into a war aim. To do so would give credence to the lie that the war reflects Nato aggression.
Thanks, and of course I quite agree. It's just that I see the whole preoccupation with the need to 'avoid humiliating VVP' as elevating an irrelevance into a debilitating distraction.
As ever, incisive, clear analysis. One tiny quibble, Philip - you say it should not be the West's goal to 'humiliate' Putin. As someone who knows Russia very well, I agree. Humiliation could ferment further bitterness/resentment: what the Russians call 'zlost' (viz Hitler post-Versailles). However, a defeat for Putin will of necessity be humiliating. Again, the point is clarifying that it's not *the West's* goal to humiliate Putin. That goal may well be Zelensky's or even Putin's own circle. Putin deserves that humiliation, but he mustn't be allowed to accuse the West of having that sole objective.
Agreed...it may well end in humiliation for Putin but you are right to suggest the west should not make this a war aim