Russia and Ukraine, mutual self destruction

 Do I read this right, Russia might only accept peace now if it keeps what it presently occupies, something Ukraine would never agree to.

Broadly speaking, yes. At the moment the gap between the two sides' publicly stated positions remains very large.

Russia has consistently signaled that any settlement would have to recognize its control over the territories it currently occupies, and in some formulations it has gone further, demanding recognition of all of the regions it claims to have annexed, including areas it does not fully control. Ukraine, for its part, officially maintains that its territory is not negotiable and that Russian annexations are illegal.

That creates a classic problem. If Russia's minimum acceptable outcome is "we keep what we hold" and Ukraine's minimum acceptable outcome is "Russia withdraws from our territory," then there is no overlap between the bargaining positions.

Of course, public positions and actual negotiating positions are not always the same thing. Governments often stake out maximal demands before talks. Wars have ended many times with settlements that neither side would have publicly accepted a year earlier. But as of now, there is little visible evidence that either Moscow or Kyiv has moved enough to create a mutually acceptable deal.

One possibility is a Korean-style armistice: fighting stops roughly along the current front line without a final peace treaty or formal recognition of territorial changes. That would allow each side to maintain its legal position while ending active combat. The difficulty is that even such an arrangement requires both sides to conclude that continued fighting is worse than an imperfect ceasefire.

The underlying issue is that neither side yet appears convinced it has reached that point. Russia still believes it can improve its position militarily or politically, while Ukraine still hopes that continued resistance can prevent the loss of territory and perhaps eventually reverse some of Russia's gains. As long as both sides think time may improve their position, peace negotiations tend to stall.

So your reading is essentially correct: if Russia insists on keeping the territory it currently occupies, and Ukraine insists on recovering it, a comprehensive peace agreement is very hard to imagine under present circumstances. The most plausible near-term compromise, if one emerges at all, would likely look more like a ceasefire than a true peace settlement.

What about possible restrictions on ensuing Ukraine behavior, as in Austria?

Yes, that is one of the ideas that periodically appears in discussions of a settlement.

The Austrian model was not primarily about territory. It was about foreign policy and military alignment. After the 1955 settlement that restored Austrian sovereignty, Austria pledged permanent neutrality, would not join military alliances, and would not permit foreign military bases on its territory. In return, the occupying powers withdrew.

Applied to Ukraine, the obvious analogue would be:

    No NATO membership.

    No foreign military bases.

    Possibly limits on foreign troops stationed in Ukraine.

    Some form of constitutional or treaty commitment to neutrality.

The difficulty is that Ukraine's situation differs from Austria's in a crucial respect. Austria became neutral after the Soviet Union agreed to leave Austria. Ukraine is being asked to contemplate neutrality after Russia has invaded it repeatedly and seized territory. Many Ukrainians therefore ask: what is the guarantee that neutrality would actually protect them? The 1994 Budapest Memorandum is often cited in this context, since Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances that ultimately did not prevent later Russian actions.

As a result, when "Austrian neutrality" was discussed earlier in the war, Ukrainian officials generally argued that a simple Austrian-style arrangement was insufficient and that any neutral status would require much stronger and more explicit security guarantees.

There is another wrinkle. Austria's neutrality did not prevent it from becoming economically and politically part of the West. Austria joined the European Union and remained a democratic market economy. So an Austrian model for Ukraine would not necessarily mean becoming a Russian satellite. It could mean remaining outside NATO while still being integrated with Europe economically and politically.

From Moscow's perspective, however, neutrality alone may not be enough. Russian statements have at various times also included demands concerning territory, military forces, and Ukraine's political orientation. So even if Kyiv were willing to discuss something resembling Austrian neutrality, that would not automatically resolve the territorial dispute that we were discussing earlier.

In short, an "Austria solution" is one of the few conceivable compromise frameworks: Ukraine keeps its sovereignty and European orientation but renounces military alliances. The question that has haunted the idea from the beginning is simple: who guarantees it, and why would either side trust the guarantee? That question is much harder than writing the neutrality clause itself.

I think most Europeans would agree with you if by "culture" we mean literature, music, language, cuisine, religion, art, family life, and the ordinary ways people live.

Russian culture is deeply woven into European civilization. Europeans study Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Anton Chekhov. They perform the works of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Dmitri Shostakovich. Russian ballet, mathematics, science, and engineering are widely respected. In that sense, Russia is not culturally alien to Europe in the way that Europeans historically viewed some more distant civilizations.

Where things become contentious is that people sometimes use the word "culture" to include political habits and historical traditions. Then the conversation changes. Some Europeans would argue that Russia has a tradition of highly centralized authority and a different relationship between state and society than is common in contemporary Western Europe. Many Russians would reply that this is not a cultural defect but a historical adaptation to Russia's geography, security concerns, and experience.

Even then, however, I think the main obstacles are political and institutional rather than cultural in the narrower sense. Nobody in Paris or Berlin objects to Russians reading Pushkin, attending Orthodox liturgy, eating borscht, or speaking Russian. The disputes are over questions such as sovereignty, borders, military alliances, elections, courts, media, and the limits of state power.

In fact, one interesting piece of evidence for your point is that millions of Russians have lived, worked, studied, and vacationed across Europe over the last few decades. They generally integrated into everyday European life without great difficulty. That is not what one would expect if there were a profound cultural incompatibility.

So I would put it this way: the divide between Russia and Europe is much less a clash of cultures than a clash of political visions, security interests, and historical narratives. Europeans can admire Russian culture while strongly disagreeing with the policies of the Russian state. Conversely, many Russians feel culturally European while remaining skeptical of European political institutions. Those positions are not mutually exclusive.

First an ideology, then a corrupt kleptocracy, now a strongman.  These are what make Russia dangerous and also hold it down.

There is a strong argument for that view.

If you look at Russia over the last century, the recurring theme is not so much Russian culture as the nature of the state. Under the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, an ideological system imposed enormous economic and human costs. After the Soviet collapse, many hoped for a transition to a more open and law-based system, but the 1990s saw the rise of oligarchic wealth and weak institutions. The subsequent consolidation of power under Vladimir Putin brought greater state capacity in some respects, but also increasing concentration of power.

A critic of modern Russia might say exactly what you have: ideology gave way to kleptocracy, which gave way to strongman rule. In that telling, the country's enormous human and natural resources have repeatedly been constrained by political arrangements that discourage accountability, innovation, and trust.

At the same time, many Russians would tell a different story. They would argue that the ideological period transformed a largely agrarian empire into an industrial power, that the 1990s were chaotic and humiliating, and that strong central authority restored stability. Even Russians who dislike corruption may fear disorder more than they fear concentrated power.

One thing that strikes me is that Russia's history often seems to involve a trade-off between strength and freedom. Periods of strong central control have sometimes produced military power and political stability, but at significant costs. Periods of liberalization have often brought greater openness, but sometimes also instability. Whether that trade-off is real or merely perceived is a matter of debate, but it has shaped Russian political thinking for generations.

Your final point—that these features both make Russia dangerous and hold it back—is particularly interesting. A highly centralized state can mobilize resources quickly, sustain long wars, and project power abroad. Yet the same concentration of power can suppress criticism, distort information reaching leaders, encourage corruption, and make policy mistakes harder to correct.

History offers many examples of states whose strengths and weaknesses came from the same source. The very characteristics that allow a government to act decisively can also make it brittle. The challenge is that such brittleness is often hard to see until a crisis arrives. Looking at Russia today, observers disagree sharply about whether they are seeing a resilient state capable of enduring immense pressure or a system whose underlying weaknesses are being exposed by the strain of war. That question may not be settled for years.

The conversion to industry happened worldwide and Russia happens to have had the size and resources to do it.  It would have happened under almost any regime one can imagine.

That's a serious historical argument, and many historians would find it plausible, though not uncontested.

The Soviet narrative long held that rapid industrialization was possible because of the communist system. The counterargument is that industrialization was occurring across the world in countries with very different political systems. Once a country reaches a certain level of technology and has access to coal, iron, oil, capital, education, and a large population, industrialization becomes less a question of whether and more a question of how and at what cost.

Russia certainly had extraordinary advantages: vast natural resources, a large population, major rivers, access to European technology, and a substantial industrial base even before the Revolution. The Russian Empire was already industrializing rapidly before 1914, albeit from a relatively low starting point.

The real question is the counterfactual. Would a non-communist Russia have industrialized more slowly, more quickly, or about the same? Nobody can prove the answer because the alternative history never occurred.

Critics of the Soviet system often point to countries that industrialized without collectivization, mass repression, famine, and the Gulag. They argue that Russia paid an enormous human price for a process that would have happened anyway. Supporters of the Soviet experience counter that Russia faced unusual security threats and that a slower pace might have left it vulnerable to destruction by hostile powers.

One thing worth noting is that the Soviet Union's greatest achievement may not have been industrialization itself but the speed of industrialization. The regime concentrated resources ruthlessly and achieved results in decades that might otherwise have taken longer. The debate is whether the acceleration justified the cost.

Your observation about size and resources is important because it shifts the focus from ideology to underlying fundamentals. A country with Russia's territory, minerals, energy reserves, agricultural land, and educated population has a great deal of latent power almost regardless of who governs it. The question then becomes not whether it can become powerful, but whether its institutions allow it to use that potential efficiently.

In that sense, one could make an argument that Russia's tragedy is not a lack of resources or talent but a recurring pattern in which political systems—Tsarist, Soviet, and post-Soviet—have not fully converted those advantages into broad prosperity. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated that it can become formidable. It has been less successful at becoming both formidable and broadly affluent at the same time.

Of course, someone on the other side might respond that Russia has survived invasions, revolutions, civil wars, and economic collapses that would have destroyed many states altogether. They would argue that durability itself is evidence that the governing traditions you criticize have had strengths as well as weaknesses.

That is one reason Russia remains such a fascinating historical case: almost every judgment about it contains a counterargument that is not obviously foolish.
You’re now chatting with Mini. Responses may have lower quality until 3:26 PM.