Negotiate or escalate in Ukraine?

A wary general’s warnings

General Mark A. Milley is the 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, and the principal military advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Council (Dept. of Defense). On November 9, 2022 the General was speaking at the Economic Club of New York. Here are some of his comments based upon Twitter notes from a Washington Post journalist (@DanLamothe):

Milley asked: Is the time right to consider diplomacy in Ukraine?

Milley says "there has to be mutual recognition" that a true military win is not achievable.

Draws comparison to World War I, where victory was not achievable after 1914. Millions more killed in next few years.

Milley, asked if the time is right for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, said that will require both sides to believe that a full military victory is not achievable. The winter months, when fighting will slow a bit, create an opportunity to do so.

According to a later article in The Washington Post Gen. Milley also reconned that over 100,000 Russian soldiers had been killed or wounded the Ukraine War, and that a similar number of Ukrainian soldiers had “probably” also been killed or wounded. While 40,000 civilians may have died or been wounded, and up to 30 million had been forced to flee their homes.

Later, a meeting of “The Ukrainian Defense Contact Group” on November 16, the general at first sounded somewhat more belligerent: “So, across the entire front line trace of some 900 or so kilometers, the Ukrainians have achieved success after success after success and the Russians have failed every single time. They've lost strategically, they've lost operationally, and I repeat, they lost tactically.

What they've tried to do, they failed at. They started this war and Russia can end this war. Russia can make another choice, and they could make a choice today, to end this war. However, Russia is choosing to use their time to attempt to regroup their forces and they are imposing a campaign of terror, a campaign of maximum suffering on the Ukrainian civilian population in order to defeat Ukrainian morale.” (Transcript from the press conference).

While this may sound as if the general is expecting the Ukrainian to win the war, and not seek an end to war through negotiations, the general also emphasised the heavy cost to the Ukrainians. “The Russians are striking throughout the depth and breadth of all of Ukraine with air-launched cruise missiles, with Kalibr sea-launched cruise missiles, and with other types of munitions. They are striking the Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, and it has little or no military purpose. … Basic human survival and subsistence is going to be severely impacted and human suffering for the Ukrainian population is going to increase. These strikes will undoubtedly hinder Ukraine's ability to care for the sick and the elderly. Their hospitals will be partially operational. The elderly are going to be exposed to the elements. In the wake of unrelenting Russian aggression and incalculable human suffering.” Even so the general thought that “at the end of the day, Ukraine will retain -- will remain a free and independent country with its territory intact.” Thus, upholding the official U.S. view.

Then he was asked this question: “A follow-up, sir, to your comments about -- earlier from last week about the possibility of discussions put on by -- a slowdown in the fighting, let's say, during the winter -- it sounds like the comments that you're making today about the winter are that the Ukrainians are going to continue very strongly. Is -- are you pulling back from your comments from last week, that you see an opportunity for negotiations with the Russians?”

General Milley gave a somewhat hesitant answer, treading carefully: I think -- I think the Ukrainians should keep the pressure on the Russians, you know, to the extent that they militarily can, but winter gets very, very cold. And the natural tendency is for tactical operations are going to naturally, probably slow down. … And I think that, you know, President Biden and President Zelenskyy himself has said that there'll be a -- at the end of the day, there'll be a political solution. So, if there's a slow down in the actual tactical fighting, if that happens, then that may become a window possibly -- it may not -- for a political solution or a -- at least the beginnings of talks to initiate a political solution. So that's all I was saying.”

Prodding the general with more questions relating to his comments at Economic Club of New York, the general first praised the amazing resilience of the Ukrainians (one might add, helped by tremendous amounts of weapons from the U.S. and others), before he returned to the question arguing:

“In terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they define or what the claim is Crimea, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily. Politically, there may be a political solution where, politically, the Russians withdraw, that's possible. You want to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia right now is on its back. … So, you want to negotiate at a time when you're at your strength and your opponent is at weakness. And it's possible, maybe that there'll be a political solution. All I'm -- all I'm saying is there's a possibility for it. That's all I'm saying.”

Evidently General Milley is in some sort of quandary, supporting a the official “standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” while evidently having some misgivings about this view. Realizing the enormous cost it may have, the possible escalations, and perhaps even thinking that this is not where the U.S. ought to have its military focus, surely having his eye on the mighty challenges posed by China. And General Milley may not be alone with this view in the U.S. Military. A Defense Department official is quoted as saying “Why not start talking about [peace talks] before you throw another 100,000 lives into the abyss?” (politico.com).

This is neither the official stance of the U.S. government nor of the U.S. Allies for that matter. The official stance of the U.S. and NATO is “to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes” (Jens Stoltenberg).

Ukraine will not be pushed to negotiate

At a press conference on November 9 the very same day Milley was thinking aloud in New York, President Biden was asked what he meant when he had said “it remains to be seen whether or not, … Ukraine is prepared to compromise with Russia.” Biden, in his usual confusing way answered by saying: “No, I’m not say- — that’s up to the Ukrainians. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. didn’t have any in mind. You have asked the question whether or not, if I recall — whether or not — what would happen if, in fact, after the — this — I think the context is that whether or not they’re pulling back from Fallujah [sic]. And the — I mean, from the — [Kherson was the city his thinking of].

Realising that Gen. Milley’s comments had caused consternation not the least in Ukraine, “The Biden administration is working to reassure the Ukrainian government, outside experts, and former US officials that it will not push Ukraine to imminently seek a diplomatic outcome to the war with Russia.” (CNN report). “One official explained that the State Department is on the opposite side of the pole from Milley. That dynamic has led to a unique situation where military brass are more fervently pushing for diplomacy than US diplomats.” (CNN).

On the flight to the G-20 Summit in Bali National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan reiterated the U.S. position after General Milley’s remarks in New York. Sullivan argued that the U.S. would do everything possible to put Ukraine in “best possible position on the battlefield so that when they make their determination to proceed, they’re in the best possible position at the negotiating table.” (Politico).

When Secretary Blinken was interviewed by the editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal on December 5. He was asked “Is there still any off-ramp for the Russians? Is there any even whisper of negotiations or any kind of discussion that could lead to negotiations right now that could somehow resolve the situation for the moment? Is there anything that you see out there?” (U.S. Department of State, December 5).

When Blinken said “Well, in a sense there’s always an off-ramp and it’s very simple: President Putin started this war; he could end it tomorrow. That’s the —” he was interrupted by the interviewer interjecting “Yeah but realistically, though.” Blinken continued “… one of the things that you can imagine is the Russians trying to find an off-ramp that would be a phony off-ramp, by which I mean, oh, let’s have a ceasefire, let’s just freeze things in place, get a frozen conflict, never negotiate about the territory that they have seized and continue to hold; rest, refit, regroup, reattack. I think it’s important —”

Interrupted again he said: “Again, fundamentally, fundamentally, this is up to the Ukrainians. But I think – and you’ve heard President Zelenskyy put forward a 10-point proposal for how this can move forward, and Zelenskyy himself has said diplomacy and negotiations will be at the end of this. What’s happened as he was saying that? He put this before the G20 just a few weeks ago. As he was saying that, Putin doubled and tripled down on what he was doing in Ukraine. So the point is this: Unless and until Russia demonstrates that it’s interested in meaningful diplomacy, it can’t go anywhere. If and when it does, we’ll be the first to be ready to help out.” (U.S. Department of State, December 5).

This is voice of the hawkish diplomat Secretary of State, Blinken, who apparently does not believe in diplomacy and negotiation. Strange that the U.S. and its allies thinks that it is up to Ukraine, read President Zelensky, alone to decide when to enter into negotiations, when the whole Ukrainian position relies on the military support of the U.S. and its allies, and the whole war essentially may be a U.S. proxy war against Russia carried on the back of Ukraine.

Further steps up the ladder of escalation

Russian attacks on the Ukrainian infrastructure with drones and missiles have had dire consequences for the civilian population and led to Ukrainian demands for more advanced air defence systems to protect their infrastructure. Foreign Minister Kuleba in late November again asked for deliveries of the U.S. made Patriot Missile system. At the Group of Seven’s (G7) virtual meeting on December 12 President Zelensky urged the leaders to supply Ukraine with modern tanks, long-range weapons and shells.

?If Ukraine were to get advanced Patriot systems and modern tanks, either German Leopards or U.S. made Abrams main battle tanks, it would represent major steps up the rungs of the escalation ladder.

The reaction to the Ukraine’s demands. The G7 meeting first of all reiterated to the almost religious sounding vow: “Today, we reaffirm our unwavering support for and solidarity with Ukraine in the face of ongoing Russian war of aggression for as long as it takes.” But they in their statement they also dared to become slightly more concrete: “We will continue to coordinate efforts to meet Ukraine’s urgent requirements for military and defense equipment with an immediate focus on providing Ukraine with air defense systems and capabilities.” No words about Patriots or modern tanks though.

The Biden administration is more active. On December 6 the FAZ, A German newspaper, could report that National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan had told an advisor to the German Bundeskanzler that the U.S. would welcome German deliveries of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, also saying that it had to be seen as a German initiative: “Sullivan habe Pl?tner am Telefon gesagt, Amerika würde es begrü?en, wenn Deutschland den Leopard 2 liefere, doch solle das auf deutsche Initiative geschehen. Amerika fordere Deutschland zu solchen Lieferungen nicht auf.” (FAZ).

Bundeskanzler Scholz is holding back, arguing that no other country had been willing to deliver modern tanks to Ukraine. Scholz evidently not wanting that Germany should be going alone and risk further escalation by providing the Ukrainians with the means to initiate new counter attacks. The opposition is more aggressive and argues for German deliveries. There has been talk of making deliveries in coordination with other countries, but no final decision has been reached.

Meanwhile CNN and other media are reporting that Pentagon is preparing plans for sending Patriot systems to Ukraine. If the plans are approved by the administration, Patriot batteries could be shipped quickly, with Ukrainian personnel being trained to use the complicated system at the US. Base and training ground at Grafenw?hr in Germany.

The Patriot plans have immediately led to warnings from Russia, with former president Medvedev warning the Patriot batteries would become legitimate targets. Judging from the aggressiveness shown by the Biden administration’s hawks the Russian warning are not likely to prevent the delivery of Patriot Batteries to Ukraine. Apparently, the administration believes that Russia is not able do much about it.

Others want to contribute with a less dangerous step up the escalation ladder. Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic, Rastislav Ká?er, recently announced that Slovakia was ready to provide Ukraine with Russian made MIG-29s: "We have not yet provided you with MiG-29s. But we are ready to do it. We are talking with our NATO partners about how to do it. And today [December 8], we had a very meaningful conversation with your President. My [Slovak] Minister of Defense explained to your President how we can do this. And I think that a Ukrainian delegation will come to Slovakia in the coming weeks and we will work together with our American friends to make this a reality." (Interfax-Ukraine).

When Ukraine surprised the Russia with long range drone attacks on airfields hundreds of kilometres from the Ukrainian border, they apparently used left over Russian Tu-141 drones of 1970s vintage. Leaving observes astounded over the Ukrainian prowess and ability to convert and use Russian built drones to attack airfields deep into Russia. While others have speculated that to hit Russian bases with precision using old drones Ukraine must have been helped. Contrary to to Blinken’s statement: “We have neither encouraged nor enabled the Ukrainians to strike inside of Russia.”? Asia Times reports that “Multiple military sources in NATO countries as well as Russia contradict him, reporting that the reconditioned Russian Tu-141 drones that Ukraine launched at Russian air bases downlinked US satellite GPS data to hit their targets.” If correct the U.S. is providing the Ukraine with a long-range strike capability. Something the U.S. have hitherto said they wanted to avoid. Thus, marking another step up the rungs of the escalation ladder.

Russia’s answer has been more drones and missile attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, and verbal rattling of the nuclear sword.

Administration hawks overruling wary generals

The Biden administration with the hawkish and undiplomatic pair of Sullivan and Blinken seem determined to defeat the Russians in the U.S. proxy war, by continuing to escalate their military support whenever it may look as if the Ukraine might be in dire straits.

While the military, not the least personified in General Milley seem to be growing warier, aware that a continued escalation might lead to the risk of a direct war between Russia and NATO, while weakening the U.S. military stance in the Pacific, making the U.S. unable to represent a credible deterrence against China.

At the moment though the hawkish views of Biden and his trusty compatriots Blinken and Sullivan are certainly prevailing, resulting in continuous support for the proxy war in Ukraine. They are also prodding U.S. allies in Europe in order to have them to follow the U.S. up the escalation ladder. Especially the reluctant Germans are under pressure from both the U.S. and the Ukrainians.

Snap shot of U.S. military assistance

The most recent U.S. fact sheet showing the assistance to Ukraine was published on December 12, and contains this list (defense.gov): https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Ukraine-Fact-Sheet-Final-12092022.pdf?

Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine. December 9, 2022

In total, the United States has committed more $20 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden Administration, including more than $19.3 billion since the beginning of Russia’s unprovoked and brutal invasion on February 24.

United States security assistance committed to Ukraine includes:

· Over 1,600 Stinger anti-aircraft systems;

· Over 8,500 Javelin anti-armor systems;

· Over 46,000 other anti-armor systems and munitions;

· Over 700 Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems;

· 142 155mm Howitzers and up to 1,004,000 155mm artillery rounds;

· 4,200 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds;

· 9,000 155mm rounds of Remote Anti-Armor Mine (RAAM) Systems;

· 36 105mm Howitzers and 180,000 105mm artillery rounds;

· 276 Tactical Vehicles to tow weapons;

· 22 Tactical Vehicles to recover equipment;

· 38 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and ammunition;

· 20 120mm mortar systems and 135,000 120mm mortar rounds;

· 1,500 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;

· Four Command Post vehicles;

· Eight National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) and munitions;

· Missiles for HAWK air defense systems;

· Four Avenger air defense systems;

· High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs);

· 20 Mi-17 helicopters;

· 45 T-72B tanks;

· Over 1,000 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs);

· Over 100 light tactical vehicles;

· 44 trucks and 88 trailers to transport heavy equipment;

· 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers;

· 250 M1117 Armored Security Vehicles

· 440 MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles;

· Mine clearing equipment and systems;

· Over 11,000 grenade launchers and small arms;

· Over 104,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition;

· Over 75,000 sets of body armor and helmets;

· Approximately 1,800 Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems;

· Laser-guided rocket systems;

· Puma Unmanned Aerial Systems;

· 15 Scan Eagle Unmanned Aerial Systems;

· Two radars for Unmanned Aerial Systems;

· Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels;