#The quincy full#
The key political element consists of three essential and mutually dependent parts: demilitarization a restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, including control of the border with Russia and full autonomy for the Donbas in the context of the decentralization of power in Ukraine as a whole. The key military element of Minsk II is the disarmament of the separatists and the withdrawal of Russian “volunteer” forces, together with a vaguely worded suggestion for the temporary removal the Ukrainian armed forces (exclusive of border guards). This solution to the Donbas dispute lies in the “Minsk II” agreement, reached in February 2015 by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine meeting under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Taking a side: Activists in Moscow show their support for pro-Russian forces in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. The depth of Russia’s commitment to this solution would of course have to be carefully tested in practice but if US administrations, the political establishment, and the mainstream media have quietly buried it, this is because of the refusal of Ukrainian governments to implement the solution and the refusal of the United States to put pressure on them to do so. Moreover, it requires no concessions of real substance by either Ukraine or the US. This solution corresponds to democratic practice, international law and tradition, and America’s own past approach to the settlement of ethnic and separatist conflicts. A solution exists that was drawn up by France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine and endorsed by the US, the European Union, and the United Nations. Yet perhaps the most tragic aspect of the seemingly unending Donbas dispute is that, while it may be one of the most dangerous crises in the world today, it is also in principle the most easily solved. Finally, given the huge superiority of Russia’s armed forces over Ukraine’s, the very limited number of US forces in Europe, and the deep unwillingness of European countries to confront Russia militarily, the strong likelihood is that Russia would win a limited war in Ukraine, seizing much more Ukrainian territory and imposing a shattering humiliation on the US and the West. China might well seize the chance to conquer Taiwan, leaving the United States to face a war with the world’s other two greatest military powers simultaneously. Even a limited war would cause a ruinous global economic crisis, necessitate the dispatch of huge US armed forces to Europe, and destroy for the foreseeable future any chance of serious action against climate change. A full-scale conventional war would have the strong potential to escalate into nuclear war and the annihilation of most of humanity.
The consequences of a direct US-Russian clash in Ukraine would be catastrophic. But as the outbreak of World War I demonstrated, leaders who do not intend to go to war may stumble into a situation in which they are unable to stop or turn back. Only the most insane of US politicians and commentators actually want to go to war with Russia in Ukraine. On the other hand, the political humiliation suffered by the Biden administration could lead it to try to recover its domestic and international prestige by responding recklessly to Russian actions. America’s defeat in Afghanistan could lead Russia (and China) to act more recklessly, just as America’s defeat in Vietnam emboldened the ambitions of the USSR in Africa and Central America.
The Taliban victory may create a new and perilous dynamic.
0 kommentar(er)
