One year on, how many additional lives may have been unnecessarily lost, people injured, displaced and devastated by the West’s refusal to back peace talks to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end?

My knowledge of these events, circumstances and the current situation on the battlefield in Ukraine, comes mainly from two commentators posting videos on YouTube: Alexander Mecouris and Brian Berletic (1).

I have previously expressed outrage at our former Prime Minister’s trip to meet President Zelensky in April 2022 to dissuade him from continuing ongoing peace negotiations with the Russians (2) – but I had no idea how well these had been progressing. It now seems that there was a very real chance of a negotiated peace – after (only) 6 weeks of war. One year on, with Ukraine in chaos, its army (and all its equipment) destroyed at least once already and the predictably rising threat of nuclear escalation, it looks as though the West’s leadership elite not only lack any morality but are also dangerously incompetent.

Both parties at the peace talks held in April 2022, brokered by Turkey and held in Istanbul, had not only agreed the areas for negotiation but had reached outline agreement on a number of proposals tabled by the Ukrainians (note – these were Ukrainian proposals that Russia had responded positively to):

– A ceasefire to be observered.

–  Russia would immediately withdraw its forces from the Kyiv region and would return all its troops to positions held prior to the 24th February offensive.

– Ukraine to remain neutral – i.e. it would not join NATO or allow foreign troops or equipment to be stationed on its territory.

– Ukraine would receive security guarantees (that it would not be invaded in the future) from key ‘great powers’ that would include Russia, USA and UK. Note that these would not cover the disputed status of The Donbass region or The Crimea which would be subject to ongoing negotiation.

– Ukraine would pursue membership of the EU.

I note that there would have been much work still to do here, particularly with regard to the safety of the predominantly Russian speaking populace of the Donbass and the future governance of the Crimea, which until the 1950s had been very much part of Russia. But hey! against the odds there were a lot of positives here to work with. Certainly enough progress was being made to justify lending support to this process – after all many, many, lives rested on it!

How did the US and NATO engage in this process?

They sent the UK’s Prime Minister, a man known to be completely lacking in gravitas and reportedly totally ‘unbriefable’, to meet with President Zelensky in Kyiv. At this meeting Johnson made it clear that neither the UK or the US would act as co guarantors of peace with Russia and moreover this was all unnecessary as the US and NATO would supply the arms necessary for Ukraine to defeat Russia on the battlefield. Ukraine would thus be able to regain complete control of all territory lost since the Russian incursion (3), including the Crimea.

Without support from the UK and the US the peace talks were dead in the water – and Ukraine has since embarked on a strategy of military escalation – with decidedly mixed results.

The initial Russian military incursion destroyed much of Ukraine’s defensive capability (which had been put together so painstakingly by NATO after the post 2014 civil war). In order to keep Ukraine in the fight, the West had to re supply mountains of equipment and provide crash training courses for new recruits to the Ukrainian army in how to use it.

Under pressure from the West, the newly supplied Ukrainian army dutifully mounted a series of counter offensives last Summer / Autumn and, despite very high casualty rates, succeeded in retaking a significant amount of territory from the Russians. However, the Russians understand only too well the importance of ceding ground in order to maintain troop formations and safeguard precious equipment. In the process of progressing these offensives the Ukrainian army not only lost many, many, trained soldiers but also most of the equipment they had so recently been resupplied with.

Once the offensives had petered out, Russian forces continued to build defences along the line of contact down the eastern strip of Ukraine to await the next offensive. The Russian war aims have never included the acquisition of Ukrainian territory. Their war aims do include the ‘demilitarisation of Ukraine’ and to this end they are fighting a war of attrition – and, it seems, one they are winning.

The West continues to pressurise Ukraine to undertake counter offensives – and one is confidently expected this Spring – seemingly designed to cut Crimea off from the Russian mainland. But there is a problem. Having promised to supply the arms and equipment necessary to progress the war to a Ukrainian victory, the West is once again having to re supply its military – and it simply can’t produce enough stuff in anything like the time frame required. US and NATO governments are being forced to deplete their own stockpiles of materiel in order to maintain even a notional level of resupply. This is not only inadequate for the task – but also not sustainable.

No wonder they sent Johnson – a political leader with a predictably short shelf life.

My understanding is that the Russian defences are not designed to stop the Ukrainian army advance, but to slow down its progress and channel it into areas where overwhelming Russian superiority in artillery can cause maximum damage. It seems that for the Russians it doesn’t matter if the Ukrainians break right through to the Sea of Azov, because by the time they get there they will have lost most of their soldiers and their equipment. The far better equipped and supplied Russian forces, bolstered by the as yet uncommitted 300,000 recently mobilised reserves, should then be in a position to make the decisive move of the war – and force the re-establishment of peace talks.

As there is no more equipment to send, or trained soldiers in reserve, this looks like the end for Ukraine – but not necessarily for the US and NATO who still have the options of putting their own boots on the ground or going nuclear. Of course, it is possible that despite the humiliation of yet another defeat, the US will choose to cut its losses (China beckons after all) secure in the knowledge that it has completely estranged the EU from Russia and destroyed the prospects for mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation between them for decades to come.

How many additional lives may have been unnecessarily lost, people injured, displaced and devastated by the decisions of the West’s leadership elite?

Notes:

(1) Other sources covering this include:

  • Stop the War Coalition 17.11.22. Did the UK torpedo peace talks in Ukraine?
  • Diplomacy Watch 02.09.22. Did Boris Johnson help stop a peace deal in Ukraine?

(2) http://onthebrynk.com/from-russia-in-exasperation/

(3) I have never liked the Russian term of ‘special military operation’ as it seemed a bit weaselly when their troops were clearly advancing into the country. However, I also have a problem with the term ‘invasion’ as it seems to me that territorial gain is not what Russia intends.