Stevenson’s army, December 8
– House votes today on NDAA under suspension of the rules –requires 2/3. Senate votes next week.
– Blinken discusses limits on Ukraine weapons.
– NYT explains ChatGPT, while Atlantic says such AI means the end of written essay tests. [OK, let’s do orals.]
-WOTR assesses new digital battlefield.
– Hill lists top lobbyists.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 7
– You can read the 4,408 page NDAA, an agreed package to be voted on later this week. What’s in and what’s out? The loss leader was a Democratic concession on the vaccine mandate.
– TPM discusses the deals McCarthy may make to become speaker.
-WSJ says Blinken favors Ukraine return to pre-invasion borders,
– Jeff Shogol has more on US limits on equipment sent to Ukraine.
– Hungary has blocked EU economic aid to Ukraine.
– Diplomats want a State Dept authorization bill.
– Michael Walzer in FP discusses moral obligations of soldiers in Ukraine war.
Fred Kaplan assesses the impact of the drone strikes inside Russia.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 6
– Axios reports on new CSIS study on how to improve US export controls agency,
– Germany backtracks on defense spending promise.
– New poll shows diminishing support for Ukraine aid.
– Defense News reports secrecy limits on unveiling of B21.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
So when is the right time to negotiate?
This question for Ukraine has aroused a good bit of interest. President Zelensky has made it clear that achieving his war aims will require a Russian defeat. Many others think that is impossible, as Russia has so much deeper manpower resources than Ukraine. Few are still considering President Putin’s preferred option. He would like a clear-cut Ukrainian defeat, but Kyiv’s stalwart defense and now successful offense has muted the likelihood of that outcome.
Ripeness
The canonical conflict management response to the question is “ripeness.” Negotiations have a chance for success when they meet two conditions:
- The parties are locked in a “mutually hurting stalemate” and are consequently looking for
- A “mutually enticing way out,” one at least as attractive as continuing the fight.
For the observer, judging ripeness is more difficult than feeling a piece of fruit at the grocery store, though it bears some resemblance. What is the feel of the conflict? Are both sides really hurting? What alternatives to a negotiated agreement do they still have that they have not pursued? What kind of “way out” would appeal to the warring parties? If the conditions are not fulfilled, are there outside forces prepared to create the necessary pressures? Or are there events that might do so?
Not now
I see little sign the current situation is ripe and even less that outside forces or events will force a serious negotiation. Ukraine is still advancing, albeit slowly. Its citizens still support the war effort. @PetroBurkovskyi reports:
Russian public opinion is more equivocal and harder to measure. But it doesn’t matter as much because Putin gets to make all the important decisions. He is is gearing up for another manpower mobilization this winter, including more prisoner brigades enlisted to brutalize their opponents. Putin has been explicit that talks will require as a pre-condition recognition of his claim to annexed territories.
Russia’s air attacks are persistent. Ukraine’s air defenses are improving and its ability to strike deep inside Russia developing. Both sides are escalating, within the limited means at their disposal. Ukraine’s minimal objectives–pushing back Russia to the February 23 lines–are still far off. Russia’s minimal objective of occupying fully the four provinces it has “annexed” are also far off.
Talk and fight
Lack of ripeness does not mean the sides shouldn’t or don’t communicate and even negotiate. It only means ending the war by negotiation is unlikely. The UN and Turkey have successfully negotiated with Kyv and Moscow an agreement that allows some export of Ukrainian grain, which will help to stave off famine in the Middle East and Africa. The warring arties no doubt also meet to exchange prisoners and allow civilians with urgent needs to cross confrontation lines. There is also non-verbal communication. The successful Ukrainian drone strike on a big Russian air base is a clear signal to Moscow of ability to escalate further.
It is common to “talk and fight,” since doing so can provide vital information on the enemy and his intentions as well as communicate messages of one’s own. Putin’s hints about the use of tactical nuclear weapons were intended to frighten. They did that in some Europeaan capitals and Washington, though not in Kyiv. The Ukrainian fight is already existential. The Russian one is not, except for Putin personally. It is unlikely that negotiations can produce an end to this war with him still in power.
There are two big known unknowns
Two key factors in deciding how this war ends will be what happens in Moscow and what happens in Washington. Putin won’t likely give in, but his successors might. Biden seems solid, despite his conditional offer to talk with Putin if the latter wants to end the war. That’s a big if. But Biden will come under a lot of pressure from some European and American experts to allow Russia half a loaf, on the unproven theory that will satisfy him. Biden will also face resistance from the substantial pro-Russian wing of the Republican Party, but they are unlikely to prevail.
So we are in for more war, and more jaw. Serious negotiations to end the war are not on the horizon.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 5
– WSJ says US secretly modified HIMARS to limit attacks on Russia.
– WaPo reports on scandal involving US officers and Azerbaijan.
– David Ignatius reviews a week of Putin’s activities.
– The Hill tells of GOP demands regarding NDAA.
– Dan Drezner tries to explain Macron.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 4
– Just in time for this week’s orals, NYT has long article arguing orals are good for you.
– Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon assesses the new DOD report on China’s military power.
– Ruth Marcus has long WaPo article arguing originalism is bad legal theory.
– DNI Haines says Russia is using up its ammunition faster than replacement.
– DOD lists problems if there’s a year-long CR.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
