Several comments on my latest essay and an essay on the same subject posted on the substack account of Karlof 1 prompt me to return to this subject with a few fresh observations of my own.
In particular, I have further remarks on Trenin’s preferred solution, which was to divide what is left of Ukraine after Russia takes those regions it considers to be of strategic importance for its own security into two parts: a westernmost ‘Free’ part that would be the dumping ground for neo-Nazi riff-raff now in Kiev and protected and/or controlled by Poland, Hungary and Romania – and a second, ‘good Ukraine’ that would be rehabilitated and find itself in the Russian sphere of influence, eventually becoming a Russian ally.
I already called out how ceding the westernmost part of Ukraine to NATO powers compromises the reason that the war was initiated by Russia. That was to expel NATO from all of Ukraine, thereby starting the process of rolling-back the Alliance to its West European member states such as existed before the expansion begun during the Clinton administration.
However, there are other points which I neglected to make. The most important is that the Ukraine problem cannot be solved definitively until and unless the NATO problem is solved definitively by redrawing the security architecture of Europe. A NATO in its present form, with some foothold in Ukraine, a NATO that has not been publicly humiliated and reined in, if not dissolved here and now will continue to be an existential threat to Russia. It will persist in its ‘mission’ of bringing Russia to its knees via Moldova, or Georgia, or Kazakhstan, or, if need be, the Baltics, Sweden and Finland.
Those who say that NATO will collapse on its own overestimate the differences between the overwhelming majority of member states and two dissident members, Hungary and Slovakia. NATO’s collapse can only be engineered by the United States and Russia acting in agreement over what security arrangements will follow.
Meanwhile, Trenin’s preferred solution of two Ukraines fails to consider the possibility that they will eventually decide on their own to reunite, as the GDR and the FRG did. Given the level of hostility that the Ukrainian nation feels towards Russia now after 10 years of indoctrination by the ultra-nationalists who have been in power since 2014, given the vast suffering that Russia has inflicted on the population through destruction of the energy infrastructure that will take years to restore and the vast numbers of Ukrainian soldiers killed or severely wounded, I find it improbable that any part of that nation will join hands with Russia for a better future together. Their possible threat to Russia can only be neutralized if NATO is removed from the equation, not only on their territory but in Europe as a whole.
At present, it is only by the will of the United States that NATO can be de-fanged. This should be the proper subject for any Trump-Putin summit, not some cease fire or even some peace treaty with Ukraine.
*****
In closing, I point out that essentially what Trenin is recommending is a division of the Ukrainian nation into two political camps roughly along lines that go back further in time than WWII. Before WWI, the Lvov region, Volhynia and Galicia were all part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and everything to the east was part of the Russian empire. The Austrians encouraged use of the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian ambitions as a battering ram against the part of Ukraine east of the Dnieper that was the Russian Empire, where the Ukrainian national feelings were tamped down by the ruling dynasty. That was not a solution that survived 1914 and it is not a solution for today. Not local but Europe-wide solutions are needed.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)
Weitere Gedanken zu Trenin und dem Kriegsende
Mehrere Kommentare zu meinem neuesten Essay und einem Essay zum gleichen Thema, die auf dem Substack-Account von Karlof 1 gepostet wurden, veranlassen mich, mit ein paar eigenen frischen Beobachtungen auf dieses Thema zurückzukommen.
Insbesondere habe ich weitere Anmerkungen zu Trenins bevorzugter Lösung, nämlich die Aufteilung dessen, was von der Ukraine übrig bleibt, nachdem Russland die Regionen eingenommen hat, die es für seine eigene Sicherheit als strategisch wichtig erachtet, in zwei Teile: einen westlichsten „freien“ Teil, der als Sammelbecken für das Neonazi-Gesindel, das sich derzeit in Kiew aufhält und von Polen, Ungarn und Rumänien geschützt und/oder kontrolliert wird, und eine zweite, „gute Ukraine“, die rehabilitiert würde und sich im russischen Einflussbereich wiederfände, um schließlich ein Verbündeter Russlands zu werden.
Ich habe bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass die Abtretung des westlichsten Teils der Ukraine an die NATO-Mächte den Grund dafür, dass der Krieg von Russland initiiert wurde, in Frage stellt. Russland wollte die NATO aus der gesamten Ukraine vertreiben und damit den Prozess einleiten, das Bündnis auf seine westeuropäischen Mitgliedstaaten zurückzufahren, wie es vor Beginn der Erweiterung unter der Clinton-Regierung der Fall war.
Es gibt jedoch noch andere Punkte, die ich nicht angesprochen habe. Der wichtigste ist, dass das Ukraine-Problem erst dann endgültig gelöst werden kann, wenn das NATO-Problem durch eine Neugestaltung der Sicherheitsarchitektur Europas endgültig gelöst ist. Eine NATO in ihrer jetzigen Form, mit einem gewissen Standbein in der Ukraine, eine NATO, die nicht öffentlich gedemütigt und gezügelt, wenn nicht sogar aufgelöst wird, wird auch weiterhin eine existenzielle Bedrohung für Russland darstellen. Sie wird an ihrer „Mission“ festhalten, Russland über Moldawien, Georgien, Kasachstan oder, wenn nötig, die baltischen Staaten, Schweden und Finnland in die Knie zu zwingen.
Diejenigen, die sagen, dass die NATO von selbst zusammenbrechen wird, überschätzen die Differenzen zwischen der überwältigenden Mehrheit der Mitgliedstaaten und den beiden abtrünnigen Mitgliedern Ungarn und Slowakei. Der Zusammenbruch der NATO kann nur von den Vereinigten Staaten und Russland herbeigeführt werden, die sich über die nachfolgenden Sicherheitsvereinbarungen einig sind.
Unterdessen berücksichtigt Trenins bevorzugte Lösung von zwei Ukrainen nicht die Möglichkeit, dass sie sich irgendwann von selbst für eine Wiedervereinigung entscheiden, wie es die DDR und die BRD getan haben. Angesichts der Feindseligkeit, die die ukrainische Nation Russland gegenüber empfindet, nach zehn Jahren Indoktrination durch die Ultranationalisten, die seit 2014 an der Macht sind, angesichts des enormen Leids, das Russland der Bevölkerung durch die Zerstörung der Energieinfrastruktur, deren Wiederherstellung Jahre dauern wird, und die große Zahl getöteter oder schwer verwundeter ukrainischer Soldaten zugefügt hat, halte ich es für unwahrscheinlich, dass sich ein Teil dieser Nation mit Russland zusammenschließen wird, um gemeinsam eine bessere Zukunft zu schaffen. Ihre mögliche Bedrohung für Russland kann nur neutralisiert werden, wenn die NATO aus der Gleichung entfernt wird, nicht nur auf ihrem Territorium, sondern in ganz Europa.
Derzeit kann die NATO nur durch den Willen der Vereinigten Staaten entschärft werden. Dies sollte das eigentliche Thema eines Trump-Putin-Gipfels sein, nicht irgendein Waffenstillstand oder gar ein Friedensvertrag mit der Ukraine.
*****
Abschließend möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass Trenin im Wesentlichen eine Aufteilung der ukrainischen Nation in zwei politische Lager empfiehlt, die in etwa auf eine Zeit vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg zurückgeht. Vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg gehörten die Region Lemberg, Wolhynien und Galizien alle zum österreichisch-ungarischen Reich und alles östlich davon zum russischen Reich. Die Österreicher förderten die Verwendung der ukrainischen Sprache und ukrainische Ambitionen als Rammbock gegen den Teil der Ukraine östlich des Dnepr, der zum Russischen Reich gehörte, wo die ukrainischen Nationalgefühle von der herrschenden Dynastie unterdrückt wurden. Diese Lösung war 1914 nicht mehr tragbar und ist es auch heute nicht. Es sind keine lokalen, sondern europaweite Lösungen erforderlich.
Gilbert Doctorow 
Exactly my thoughts: the 2 original objectives (demilitarization and denazification) of the SMO need to be applied to both Ukraine as well as NATO…
LikeLike
Yes, exactly right, and very well put. In the interests of European peace (and possible future prosperity) NATO must be dissolved.
LikeLike
you nailed it
LikeLike
Trenin’s essay has opened up a good space for discussion. I wonder whether your assessment of NATO is true. It seems to me that the EU’s tottering and that some of the Eastern natives are starting to look for ways off the reservation. Fico and Orban are surely harbingers not outliers. Russian gas is the bottom line for European sobrevivencia.
Thus, it seems to me that NATO is institutionally more fragile than it appears. Considered with the abysmal failure of NATO to field a succession of viable armies in Ukraine, the outlook for MIC sales grows dimmer each passing day and zero chance of military success in a ground war though a bloody horror they could continue to wreak upon hapless Europeans.
There are so many points of failure in the EU experiment/Bretton Woods architecture that I’m wondering if NATO/EU might collapse much sooner than expected. Of course I said the euro would would be dead in three years after the Bail-in of Grecian depositors so I clearly underestimate timelines!
Thanks for all your work.
LikeLike
Absolutely correct. Living in Sweden the complete dissolvement of NATO would also bring us back our independence which our politicians now have sold out to USA and their geopolitical ambitions.
However, this would mean that the Neocons would have to completely give up their ambitions about extending their power into and over Russia.
Can Trump in the near future or someone later after him bring this about? Or has to to be through force by the Russians and their allies!
LikeLike
Yes indeed. Trenin’s piece was indeed a downer as well as seemed to forego the main Russian demands, demilitarization, denazification, neutrality.
LikeLike
never mind Trenin’s theory on possible long term solutions to the Ukraine problem..considering the RF firm aims of no NATO membership ever, demilitarisation, denazification i.e. regime change, none of Trenin’s options can possibly end the war over control of Ukraine. Only a total military defeat of NATO forces in Ukraine, a capitulation to the non negotiable three core terms of the RF by NATO and a complete withdrawal of all NATO forces from Ukrainian territory can possibly lead to a lasting peace and security for all sovereign states in that region. It is after all, an essential fight for sovereign survival between NATO and the RF, and as far as severity of fighting is concerned I am afraid we ain’t seen nothing yet, unless miraculously USNato chooses not to go down that looming doomsday road after all. It appears reasonably clear by now, however, NATO forces cannot win the war against RF, only prolong the agony of Ukraine paying the prize of blood and tears for the profit of the MIC and associates. A sickening scenario no matter what is actually going to happen, in which I am not an optimist. But like always, time will tell, nobody’s guess from any crystal ball any which way. History has got a habit to let the unexpected happen rather than not.
LikeLike
From the armchair: It seems unless the neocons in the US (and England) are ‘defanged’, that Russia will be attacked (via terrorist acts) in perpetuity. It also seems that Russia’s objective (whether obtainable or not) has to be the destruction of the Ukranian army and an unconditional surrender. It doesn’t seem that Russia would accept any NATO precense in Ukraine or any NATO ships in Odessa. A cease fire or a partition makes no sense, unless Ukraine was ‘friendly’ to Russia. Russian occupation of Ukraine west of the Dneiper would subject it to partisan warfare and a war against ‘resurgents’. A conundrum that Putin has to solve, unless perpetual war becomes the solution.
LikeLike
Thanks for the mention. I wrote again today using Lavrov’s interview as a springboard for further elaboration on the Ukraine issue. All we can do is speculate and offer what we see as out best estimates given the number of variables involved. How the population of subjected to Banderist governance and Russian military activity will react when given the opportunity to make a choice which is how I read Russian policy is the great unknown. Nor do we know the motivations behind those that exited Ukraine for the EU and what they’ll do when the conflict ends. I see Russia’s position/policy as becoming very hardened, allowing Trump very little leeway for negotiations. Here’s what I wrote today, “Lavrov Talks Arms Control & Negotiations with Rossiya Segodnya“
LikeLike
Hasn’t been this the situation all along (in fact, for 80 years)?
“The most important is that the Ukraine problem cannot be solved definitively until and unless the NATO problem is solved definitively by redrawing the security architecture of Europe. A NATO in its present form, with some foothold in Ukraine, a NATO that has not been publicly humiliated and reined in, if not dissolved here and now will continue to be an existential threat to Russia. It will persist in its ‘mission’ of bringing Russia to its knees via Moldova, or Georgia, or Kazakhstan, or, if need be, the Baltics, Sweden and Finland .”
That is, even if/when Ukraine capitulates, while:
“It should not be forgotten that swarm systems of the warring parties are now coming to the forefront and that the Ukrainian Army has shown unprecedented activity in this area. The appearance of clouds of drones over major Russian cities is no longer sensational news.” – https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/12/29/crash-of-azerbaijani-civilian-airliner-in-kazakhstan-accidental-tragedy-or-monstrous-provocation/
And there’re bad old Gladio terror, ship sinking, sanctions etc. So Russia is not winning, it may win just in the battle ground against Uraine (which hasn’t happened yet), but not against NATO.
There seems to be a manifactured consensus shared by Russian state as well:
“Russia can’t/shouldn’t escalate and hit back NATO, because then the mad NATO/US escelate too, it goes nuclear and life on earth is destroyed.´´
There are two issues with such consensus:
The first, then Russia is destined to loose.
The second, no, US/NATO is not mad, they are mad when they’re against a weak, non-nuclear country. In fact they (the oligarchy behind NATO) are the most rational bunch of evil rats, they won’t allow their most happy, sweet existence to be destroyed just for a few dollars more they don’t own when confronted by a determined Russia. It’s rational for Russia to be mad since they’ll lose everything they own.
But, if this is the case, then one would think that the Russian oligarchs/ the state parasites maybe can’t part with their happy, sweet life as well. Or, as one poster in MoA has explained some time ago, Russia has so many choke points that it can’t escalate in any meaningful way. If this is true, then whay start the SMO in the first place?
LikeLike
Russia doesn’t have to defeat NATO.
If Trump orders them to pony up 5% of GDP for Defense spending (at Uncle Sam’s Army Surplus) and also tells them the only energy they can purchase must also come from Uncle Sam’s Gas Station, and any goods they sell into the American market need stiff tariffs, and they need to start buying GMO food and hormone, vaccinated, antibiotic & antifungicide laced American dairy & beef, NATO/EU will succumb to centripetal forces.
EU is just a onefortwofer to allow NATO to control the whole pack of EU doggies.
LikeLike
Ukrainian nationalism means nothing if not being channeled and exploited by Empires.
Galicia (and Central Europe) was always a troubled region with too many different interspersed ethnic and linguistic groups to form coherent and sensible nations.
Ukrainian national identity consists entirely of hatred of Russia.
Which in the end means self-hatred, that is why it is in the grips of a death cult.
Ukrainians (especially the young) seem to have no problem abandoning their country for Europe or elsewhere if the living is better. [Always amusing to read anecdotes about some Ukrainian in Zürich beating up girls for singing a Russian song while strolling along the sidewalk — only to discover after the police intervene that they weren’t Russian, but Ukrainian girls.] Individual Ukrainians have no problem being Russian if they meet a nice girl or can get a better job there. Cut loose from some polity to focus and cultivate their UA identity, as individuals, they can just go back to being Russians, especially if they would rather survive than die glorious deaths on the field of battle to go to Walhalla.
LikeLike
What specifics of a new security architecture will be sufficient to guarantee both Russian security, and that of Europe is the question. Not only that, but to foster cooperative interactions that improve living standards for all; some regained measure of respect, and commerce. The much more obvious geographical reality for cooperative interplay between Russia and Europe vs Europe and North America seems to me not hard to get. Whether the Atlanticist aberration persists is the question.
LikeLike
In 2016, Antwerp University professor Tom Sauer published an interesting research article on the subject. Entitled “The Origins of the Ukraine Crisis and the Need for Collective Security between Russia and the West”, Sauer argued that the crisis in Ukraine is only a symptom of a wider conflict between two major powers (or power blocs), whose origins can only be understood by assessing the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe. Instead of having integrated Russia in a collective security organization on an equal level, the West kept NATO alive and by doing so deteriorated the relationship with Russia. Despite different warnings from Moscow, NATO invited Ukraine to become member of the bloc. For Sauer, ideally NATO should be transformed into a collective security organization with the inclusion of both Russia and Ukraine.
To quote from page 4:
“The best way for integrating Russia into the Western security organizations would probably have been the establishment of a new collective security organization, possibly in the form of an upgraded Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). That scenario was dismissed in the West by those who could not imagine a future without the Atlantic Alliance. US President Bush Sr ‘warned President Mitterrand [already in April 1990] that no other organization could “replace NATO as the guarantor of Western security and stability”’. He continued: ‘Indeed, it is difficult to visualize how a European collective security arrangement including Eastern Europe, and perhaps even the Soviet Union, would have the capability to deter threats to Western Europe’ (Sarotte, 2014, pp. 94–95). The CSCE was regarded as weak in 1991, and NATO’s Secretary-General Manfred Wörner (1991, p. 5) wanted to keep it that way: ‘With 38 members today and no doubt over 40 tomorrow, with the option of a veto imposed by just one member, and without an executive, the CSCE for the foreseeable future will remain burdened with structural weaknesses which will limit its effectiveness’. The CSCE that had helped strengthening the idea of human rights and liberty in Eastern Europe and the USSR – that was upgraded to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in December 1994 always remained in the shadow of NATO (Mosser, 2015). In short, the end of the Cold War was a missed opportunity. Instead of creating a new regional security system based on the principles of collective security, the West did not abolish NATO and refused to invite Russia.”
If we look at the situation today, we can conclude that most European leaders are terrified of a scenario in which Trump withdraws the US from NATO and Europe is left on its own in terms of defense. That is why Sauer’s idea to revive the OSCE as soon as possible as a European security organization of which both Russia and Ukraine are members is still a good future scenario today. In line with that, opinion leaders should draw attention to a geopolitical future of Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia, which is advocated by Norwegian professor Glenn Diesen.
LikeLike
I am doubtful that the OSCE can be revived or that returning to the Helsinki act in general is a step forward – so many boundaries have changed since then in Europe with states breaking up and more. the OSCE had 3 baskets of which the West did not implement the first two which included in the first state security and defense. they only wanted to keep alive the third basket which essentially imposed on the Soviet Union/Russia obligations with respect to honoring human rights. so it became a propaganda organization without use for security architecture. much better to start from scratch today to create a new system for Europe as it is today.
LikeLike