One of the lessons I learned as a wee one back during the Iran hostage crisis and later the first Iraq war is that most leaders and nation-states operate from their own perceived self-interest. That might sound obvious, but you may have seen foreign leaders painted as “madmen” and other similar epithets that make it sound as though their actions are irrational and unpredictable. This is almost never the case. Their motivations may be at odds with what we want them to be, they may even seem…puzzling…but the actions are almost consistent with what they perceive as their best interest.
The other thing that can confuse the issue is that the stated interest is not always (or even “seldom”) the same as the real interest. Fortunately, you usually don’t have to be a mind reader to come up with a pretty good guess. When the U.S. invaded Iraq the first time, it probably had very little to do with “defending the freedom-loving people of Kuwait” and more about “increasing U.S. access to Iraqi oil and trying to stabilize the region for U.S. businesses.” This makes sense, as the former is a an altruistic platitude and the latter is in what might reasonably be perceived as “national interest.”
So, with that out of the way, I’m going to lay out my best understanding of the interests of some of the parties involved. I’ve read and watched a lot of information from many, many different sources, but I won’t pretend like I know everything there is to know on the subject. I will, however, try my best to divorce my assessments from what I want the answers to be. Let’s get started:
Russia
I’ve edited this on account of having missed the most-important point: This is about natural gas. I should have mentioned this in the previous paragraph, but the other lesson from those older conflicts is that it’s almost always about resources. Now that the Black Sea is the new Baltic Sea, having access to the natural gas deposits is the primary goal.
You may say “Well, Russia has already taken Crimea and the port of Sevastopol, why invade the rest of Ukraine?” There are a couple of reasons. The Ukrainians have smashed a dam upstream of the peninsula, emptying some of the canals that provide water for agriculture. In addition, the southern edge of Ukraine has a lot of Black Sea-facing shoreline, and that means access to the gas.
What are almost certainly not key considerations: De-satanization, de-nazification, and creating a Russian ethnostate (those last two are comical when taken in tandem). Fear of a western invasion through Ukraine probably has some currency, but it is very unlikely that this is a key driving factor when compared to the economic concerns.
Ukraine
Again, this one’s easy: Survival as a nation. Like any nation that’s been invaded, that’s the main goal. Survive by any means necessary. If the west is sending you aid, then put on a very pro-western face. If the far-right extremists* are fighting the baddies, you look the other way. You say and do anything to keep your country afloat. Zelenskyy is literally doing what any leader on the planet would do.
“Survival as a nation” is tougher than it looks, and not just for the obvious reasons. Yes, Russia is much bigger and stronger and dislodging them from the conquered territory will be difficult. The problems at the bargaining table are almost as difficult. A “peace” where Russia retains the areas they have conquered is just a cease-fire until they can retool, reload, and have a third bite at the apple.
Another obstacle is that many of the peace proposals have included a clause that requires Ukraine to remain neutral with respect to Russia and the West. Any such agreement nullifies national sovereignty as a country that isn’t free to make deals with whoever they like isn’t a country. An agreement that neuters Ukraine in this fashion is the end of Ukraine as an independent nation.
* Yes, some of them are actual, Hugo-Boss-Cosplay nazis. No point in pretending otherwise. They have absolutely minimal impact on Ukrainian politics. The far-right party, of which the nazis are a minority, never achieved the electoral success of the BNP in the United Kingdom. I am not comfortable supporting nazis. I am perfectly comfortable supporting a country in which they are an inconsequential minority like, say, the U.S. I’m certainly more comfortable with that than, say, twisting my head around justifying an invasion.
U.S.
The U.S., obviously, is on the side of freedom and democra…just kidding. As far as I can tell, the U.S. has two primary and one secondary interest in this war. The first is to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition. Washington sees Russia as a problem, as they are a) very cash-poor with an economy about the size of Italy’s, and b) in possession of a huge military with a lot of modern weapons. A war of attrition isn’t at all what Ukraine wants, but they’ll take what support they can get.
In addition, ensuring access to the Black Sea gas for American companies is certainly going to be an American goal. It’s almost certain that Ukraine has made some promises in this regard in exchange for support, but we don’t have any visible evidence. This would be consistent the goals of both parties.
Of course, that support comes in the form of American goods and weapons, and those are making some well-connected people a lot of money at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. That’s goal #2 if I’m correct in my guesses: Funnel a lot of money into the hands of certain wealthy Americans with a minimum of accountability.
The secondary goal is simply to support the U.S.’s European allies, who have a considerably greater interest in curtailing Russia’s expansion. The U.S. burned a lot of bridges in Europe a few years ago, and this is an opportunity to mend them a little. I don’t think this is the primary driver. It’s more like a nice side-effect.
The EU
Unlike the U.S., the Europeans have a lot to fear from a war in eastern Europe. It is not at all in their interests to keep things simmering along; they would prefer to see the war ended which is why many of them have been more aggressive about sending modern equipment to Ukraine than the U.S. has.
This is Russia’s third invasion of a neighbor in the last 14 years, which is enough to establish a pattern in the eyes of many Europeans. Their primary goal here is to stop Russian expansion and they’re happy to help so long as the Ukrainians are doing the bulk of the fighting.
So, while Europe is supporting Ukraine, the same the U.S., their goals and methods aren’t the same at all. The EU and the U.S. are not nearly the lockstep partners they used to be. With America’s most lockstep ally out of the EU, there’s more of a desire to pursue European interests as opposed to American interests. In this case, they may be the same, but only to a degree.
NATO
OK, this is a weird one. You are of course, aware of the single biggest roadblock to NATO expansion: NATO. NATO would be much, much bigger if all the countries that wanted to join were allowed to. My initial thought was that NATO might be satisfied to see a Russian victory in Ukraine as there is literally nothing else that would encourage other nations to want to join NATO faster than: “If you in NATO, you’re safe. If you’re not, you’re on your own.”
The problem with that line of thinking is that it doesn’t really match the facts. Many countries want to join NATO and NATO has largely put them off. There’s no lack of desire to join the alliance. If anything, NATO has been largely silent for obvious reasons: If the U.S. or Poland or Germany assist Ukraine, that’s one thing. If NATO does it, that escalates the situation to another level. NATO as an organization seems to be playing a “watch and wait” game.
China
We’re done with the easy ones, but the last two are by far the most interesting. What does China want in all of this? If I’m reading it correctly, their goals are largely the prestige from being the only power that can broker a peace, but no immediate desire for said peace. For what it’s worth, this is the bit I’m most conflicted about: Does China want this to end or not? Is framework for discussions a genuine attempt to end the fighting or just produce a cease-fire that lets Russia get their logistics in order before resuming the war? I don’t have a great sense of this.
If any one country benefits from this war (as much as wars can be said to benefit anyone), it’s China. China gets to see two adversaries at loggerheads, a page straight out of Ted Shackley‘s handbook. They get to play the role of the only country in a position to broker peace.
China’s relationship with Russia is very much a marriage of convenience that is unlikely to stand the test of time. China has people, power, technology, money, and very scant resources, so in a way, they’re the perfect trading partner for Russia. Russia has a diminishing population in Asia, very little tech, even less cash, but loads of resources. It’ll be interesting to see if the trend of Chinese labor operating Russian oil fields in the east continues.
They are not, however, great friends. Russia has what China wants, and China has money, which is something that Russia desperately needs to pay for the war. China gets to see Russia go further in debt while keeping the U.S. occupied in Europe. I’m not saying that Tapei is goal here, but Tapei, eventually, is the goal. Mao made it clear that China needed to reclaim territory it lost in “unequal treaties.” Next on the list is northern Manchuria and Vladivostok, which certainly limits the length and strength of their partnership.
Crimea
Finally, the heart of the conflict! Taking Crimea was the proximate goal of the first Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it’s the lynch pin of the second one. This is, to me, the most complicated bit of the whole thing too. Bear with me here.
What do the people of Crimea want? They are very open to joining Russia. Ethnically, Crimea is currently majority-Russian, so that’s no surprise. Unlike in the recently-conquered territories, the referendums have consistently shown the desire to be part of Russia and thus, unlike the referendums in Donbas et. al., can be taken somewhat seriously.
That doesn’t settle it because, even if a section of a country says “we’d rather be part of this other country,” that original country usually has some say in it. It’s even more complicated when another country has invaded the region. Even if the people have expressed their will, most countries take offense at being asked to give up territory that has been invaded.
You may have noticed that I mentioned said “currently majority-Russian.” That’s because that wasn’t the case until (relatively) recently; the Soviet Union embarked up on a huge colonization effort after WW2 to change the demographics of the region. This has continued after Russia took Crimea, with over a million Russians re-settled to Crimea since 2014. If this sounds sort of like Israel’s settlement strategy, no wonder: Much of what Russia has done in Ukraine has mirrored what Israel has done.
Ukraine, obviously, doesn’t want to let Crimea go (moot though the point may be): Again, Sevastopol is the key to the Black Sea, and the other thing is that the Crimean peninsula is a fantastic defensive position and staging ground for attacks. Russian possession of Crimea is a threat to the existence of Ukraine.
I don’t have an answer here. I don’t see any scenario where Russia are removed from Crimea, and it’s hard to imagine any peace acceptable to Ukraine that leaves it in Russian hands. When it comes to the other players, they’re not really important here except with respect to their ability to bring the sides to the table.
Summary
I’ve tried to lay out a case here that all of the parties involved are rational actors and doing things you would expect them to be doing given their situations. Scenarios suggesting that, for example, Russia will use nuclear weapons against Ukraine if things start going badly, a scenario that requires Russia to act with disregard for their own well-being, acting as “madmen” if you will.
My takeaway, in case you hadn’t sussed it out, is that:
-Invading other countries is bad. There’s no excuse for what Russia has done here (for the third time).
-Ukraine’s actions are precisely what any nation would do when they’ve been invaded.
-The U.S. may be on the right side, but I don’t trust the intentions or the methods.
-The trust the European nations a good deal more.
-China is in the best position here from almost every angle.
-Crimea is the crux of it all, and I have no clue what a “good” solution looks like.
What do you think? Am I way off base here? There’s a lot of information out there, as well as misinformation and outright propaganda. No one’s immune, or at least I’m not, so I tried to get a lot of sources and it’s been equally informative and painful. I think this is a reasonable summation of where things stand and what different parties are trying to accomplish.