[Skybird]

An excerpt from https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/der-ander...nnt-ld.1686958

In proposing a compromise peace, Kissinger admittedly did not have Munich in mind, but another historical analogy - the Treaty of Versailles. The victors of World War I imposed such harsh conditions on the Germans that they never accepted the "Dictate of Shame."

Hitler then shattered the European order of 1919, so Kissinger was simply reminding everyone that all parties must accept a peace deal if it is to endure. That remains true a century later. Humiliating Putin is not a good precondition for a stable solution. Peace can only be achieved with Russia, not against it. All fantasies of being able to teach the "madman in the Kremlin" a final lesson are therefore nothing more than - fantasies.

Kissinger, however, concealed something. Any lasting order presupposes a balance of power. As soon as one power dominates, it will try to dictate its terms. Despite the Ukrainians' initial successes, the Kremlin's war machine is outnumbering Ukraine's. Although Russian losses in men and materiel are likely to be high, Moscow has the larger arsenal. Moreover, Russian forces are no longer dispersed, but limit their offensives to the Donbass.

In this way, they benefit from shorter supply routes and can concentrate their firepower. They are slowly but surely making territorial gains and are preparing for a long war of attrition. For on the Ukrainian side, too, the ranks of the fighters are thinning; there is a shortage of weapons, fuel and all kinds of supplies.

The war has already lasted a hundred long days, and Ukrainian units are no longer boldly striking from ambush. In the meantime, conventional fighting is taking place. Here, for all their tactical shortcomings, the Russians are in their element.

A balance of power is far from existing. David is still fighting Goliath. Advising the victim to give in to the aggressor at this point in time does not show strategic foresight, but a lack of empathy.

Moreover, the proposal completely misses the mood in Kiev. No matter who you talk to at the moment, whether representatives of the Ukrainian government or the opposition, the answer is identical: Ukraine will fight until the invaders are driven out. That includes Crimea.

In its unconditionality, the war goal may be unrealistic. It is also clear that at some point the question of compromise will arise. For this war will not end with the total victory of one side and the unconditional defeat of the other. But who has the better cards in the end will be decided on the battlefield and not in Washington, Berlin or Paris.

To now publicly formulate war aims from a safe distance only fosters a suspicion that is already virulent in Eastern Europe: The major powers are getting on with Russia without taking the smaller states into consideration. This experience is deeply etched in the memory - whether with the Polish partitions or with the Yalta and Potsdam conferences after World War II. Selensky and his followers know the West, so they fear a second Ukrainian partition.

The first partition happened after the Russian invasion of the Donbass and annexation of Crimea. At that time, Germany and France urged the warring parties to reach an agreement in Minsk. Everyone knew that it was a sham. Moscow never had in mind to fulfill the terms of the treaty. The war was only postponed.

However, Europe had peace for the time being, and that was most important to Paris and Berlin. Nothing has changed in this respect. Bloodshed somewhere in the East is still embarrassing to them today. The prehistory must not be ignored when appealing to "reason" and "prudence" in Kiev. These words are inevitable ciphers for the Western wish that the troublemaker Ukraine would back down. The Minsk agreement embodies a diplomacy of the strongest, in which the weakest end up being treated badly.

The war has lost momentum, and the opponents are struggling tenaciously for every square meter. Military history knows enough examples where the decisive blow followed a phase of apparent exhaustion. A Russian breakthrough is not out of the question, although another scenario is more likely: the war will not end with a beacon, it will slowly consume itself. At some point, psychology and resources will tip the balance.

There is no lack of perseverance on the part of the assaulted. This makes the supply of heavy weapons and ammunition all the more important. Only then, when the time is right, will the Ukrainians be able to compromise confidently instead of having to endure dictates as the defeated. Supporting Ukraine with weapons is not an obstacle to a peace of understanding but, on the contrary, its indispensable prerequisite.


The aggressor will cease hostilities and consider withdrawal - of whatever kind - only when he senses that the determination of the opponents is not weakening. A war of attrition is a test of nerves.


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

And European unity is slowly diminishing, Putin's best man in Europe Victor Orban playing a significant role in this.


Edit: Further quoting the text:

Macron and Scholz act as if the fate of Ukraine is secondary to them. The impression may be wrong, but perception is also a reality. This is especially true in war, where combat morale can be the deciding factor. At this level, Berlin and Paris are making themselves unwilling helpers of the Kremlin.

In 2014, Franco-German mediation led to Putin getting off scot-free and being able to keep his looted property. Berlin soon returned to business as usual and signed the contract for Nord Stream 2. All's well that ends well - except for Ukraine. Putin is hoping for history to repeat itself.
(...)

Those who call for a quick ceasefire and a compromise peace based on today's front are ready to divide Ukraine once again. The Russian occupation of most ports and a blockade of the port of Odessa would severely affect the country's economic viability.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)