Who is in Charge of the Madhouse?
Ukraine ─ a sacrificial lamb
In the war engulfing them, Ukrainians and Russians know where they are and do not relish Trump shouting to the world the coordinates of their positions. Russia has annexed Crimea and captured most of the Donbass. There is no likelihood that Ukraine can recapture territory from a superior military power. The warring parties remain with two choices: (1) Continue a war of attrition and suffer human losses and economic decline, or (2) Bite the bullet, instead of shooting the bullet, and take the Korean War route, a truce that freezes the military positions and sets up a demilitarized zone from where the participants can growl at each other. Both nations seem prepared for that arrangement.
To his credit, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has shown an “Ojo,” a careful eye, which Corinthians 8:9 describes as: “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” The Ukraine president wants guarantees that the Russian Bear will not become tempted, at a later time, to obtain Odesa, Kharkiv, or Kyiv. All three cities, historically, ethnically, and nationally, have a Russian past. It is conceivable that Putin will not rest until the Dnieper River is the natural border between the two nations and Russia extends along the Black Sea coastline to Moldavia with Odesa included in the coastline. A lack of guarantees is the “stumbling block” to a peaceful solution.
There is “no winner take all” in this situation. Who needs all? The imperative is that the killing and devastation stop. Being dead in a reunited Ukraine or in an extended Russia is not a victory. A possible solution, which might not make Zelensky and The Catholic Ukrainians comfortable, is to have the historical Russian Donbass and Crimea incorporated into Russia and the remaining territory, which includes Odesa, Kharkiv, and Kyiv, remain as the Ukraine nation, with provisions — similar to the European Union (EU), the two nations have a common currency and open borders, Russian and Ukraine will be official languages, Odesa will be a free port, and Ukraine will be more attached to Russia than to the west. No EU and no NATO. So what. The EU and NATO have overextended themselves and may be falling apart. Didn’t the United Kingdom leave the EU?
Looking at the events with a jaundiced eye, no matter whether Zelensky concedes or does not concede to Russia’s demands, the Russians will assure their security objectives are achieved — Ukraine will be demilitarized and more allied to Russian foreign policy. By not conceding, military action will continue, Ukrainians will be killed, their country will be devastated, and eventually demilitarized and firmly situated within the Russian orbit. By conceding, there will be no military action and corpses, Ukraine will remain a sovereign nation, demilitarized, and within Russia’s sphere of influence. Examine the two choices and which path is preferable for the Ukrainians? Examine the two choices and which path would a sensible negotiator choose?
During December 2021, Russia offered a list of security guarantees it deemed necessary to lessen tensions and resolve its arguments with Ukraine. These guarantees included (1) No invitation for Ukraine to join NATO; (2) Removal of NATO troops and weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997 (Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan nations). Note that this did not mean that these countries must withdraw from NATO; (3) No further NATO expansion; (4) No NATO drills in Ukraine, eastern Europe, or in Caucasus countries, such as Georgia, or in Central Asia without Russian agreement. Never revealed were the concessions the U.S. offered to Russia’s demands. From what is known, no concessions were offered.
The proposed arrangement favors Putin and punishes Zelensky, and for good reason. Blame the Obama administration for provoking Russia during the Maidan revolution or coup ─ depends upon perspective ─ which made Putin believe Russia could lose rights to use Crimea as a naval base, and blame the Biden administration for ignoring Putin’s proposals and threatening Russia with Ukraine as a NATO military base. No Russian president would allow ballistic missiles at its border and NATO presence close to its border. The U.S. thought they had a red light to stop an imaginary Russian expansion and gave the Russians a green light to realistically expand. The U.S. engineered instability in the region for its advantage and pushed Russia to stabilize the region to its advantage.
U.S. foreign policy, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, to Iraq, and beyond has been counter-productive ─ enabling happenings that policies intended to prevent. The disturbing manner in which the crisis in Ukraine has unfolded demonstrates once again that U.S. foreign policy is counter-productive.
Conclusion
Considering Russia’s recalcitrance, the U.S. placed Ukraine in a “no-win” situation. No matter if the U.S. agreed or disagreed with Russia’s requests, Ukraine was a big loser, and the preferred solution was to cut its losses. The United States and its European allies took the low road, encouraged Ukrainian and Russian suffering, and gained nothing. The war might have debilitated Russia’s prestige and the sanctions may have harmed Russia’s its economy, so what, these circumstances benefit no country. History may not be too kind to President Joe Biden for making Ukraine a sacrificial lamb.
It is time to ask: "Who is in charge of this madhouse?"