Some people in the West are determined to let Russia occupy Ukraine's Fantasyland border regions in the mistaken belief that responsible statecraft can bring us virtually cost-free peace for our time in Europe.
If we want a prosperous Ukraine with a viable path toward liberal governance and European Union membership, we will have to concede that it cannot be a NATO or U.S. ally, and that this neutral Ukraine must have verifiable limits on the types and quantities of weapons it may hold. If we refuse to agree to those terms, Russia will quite probably turn Ukraine into a dysfunctional wreck incapable of rebuilding itself, allying with the West, or constituting a military threat to Russia.
The assumption is that Russia will grind down Ukraine's ability to resist and NATO's will to fund Ukrainian resistance before Russia's ability to feed the meat grinder with people and materiel falters.
Wow! How wonderful! For the small price of a slice of eastern and southern Ukraine handed over to Russia, Ukraine will become a prosperous, disarmed member of the West that lifts the military burden of spending more on defense and economic aid from NATO's shoulders!
But wait! There's more! If Russia is willing to accept that outcome, the need to rearm NATO in case Russia attacks a NATO member is clearly unnecessary, too!
And don't worry, Russia will agree to continued Western arms aid to deny Russia future victories:
Sufficient aid to help Ukraine to stand successfully on the defensive should therefore continue.
If current levels of Western aid have led to the situation that the authors describe as futile for Ukraine defeating Russia, how on earth is that magical level of "sufficient" defined?
To avoid being a burden on the West it would have to be much less than aid in 2022 and 2023.
But Western aid would clearly need to be more than those levels that are inevitably leading to a Russian victory that requires responsible (and--dare I even hope--nuanced?) statecraft that rises to the level of Smart Diplomacy®!
But Russia will hardly accept any level of Western support that denies Russia the ability to conquer Ukraine quickly. I mean, the Russians would have a point saying that is hardly a disarmed Ukraine with "verifiable limits on the types and quantities of weapons" if Ukraine is relatively stronger than it is now.
Golly! Thank you Responsible Statecraft!
This magical outcome assumes that a Russia willing to lose massive numbers of young men and wreck its economy to push Ukraine over the edge will then stop its military operations after it gains a clear advantage. And allow Ukraine to become a prosperous Western-aligned country with a fig leaf of disarmament to cover Russia's failure to achieve a battlefield result good enough to justify the massive costs.
Face it, Russians will remember that the Germany that invaded it in World War I was isolated and thoroughly disarmed after that war. Then came back bigger and badder in World War II just two decades later to inflict even more death and destruction on Russia.
Indeed, paranoid Russian leaders will soon assume the whole deal is a stab-in-the-back charade even if because of its own exhaustion they takes the opportunity to end the war with that deal.
And then Putin will reload.
With his military in positions more advanced with new rail lines and logistics bases leapfrogged forward because Russia will not relinquish any of its conquests from the Winter War of 2022. And face a disarmed Ukraine with a NATO lulled into continued disarmament behind it for the future big chance to restore Russia's Soviet-era greatness.
I often just shake my head in bewilderment at what Responsible Statecraft comes up with. It's time to remind ourselves of the concept of "useful idiots".
UPDATE (Saturday): Ukraine's are effort is relying on strategic warfare until its ground forces are rebuilt and it gets air power reinforcements:
The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) reportedly conducted a successful drone strike on a Rosneft oil refinery in Tuapse, Krasnodar Krai on the night of January 24 to 25.
UPDATE (Saturday): I did not realize tear gas was illegal in combat:
Russian forces are reportedly increasing their use of chemical weapons in Ukraine in continued apparent violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Russia is party. ... [Russian troops apparently use] RG-VO grenades with chloroacetophenone, a type of tear gas used for riot control.
When did that change? Or is my memory faulty? Or is it about the specific type of tear gas used? It seems odd that it is apparently legal to use it to disperse rioters but not against troops.
NOTE: ISW updates continue here. Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump.
NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.