1. My op-ed “Talks can’t end the Ukraine war, because Russia lies” (with Anastassia Fedyk, LA Times). We contend that calls for Ukraine to negotiate with Russia in the aftermath of the 2022 full-scale invasion are misguided due to Russia’s historical pattern of deception and violation of international agreements. We highlight many instances where Russia, over the past 31 years, has broken commitments to respect territorial integrity, refrain from the use of force, and withdraw troops from occupied territories in agreements with Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. We conclude that negotiations with Russia are futile given the Kremlin’s track record of lies and actions contrary to international norms.
  2. Bringing Ukraine Into NATO Without World War III” by Ambassador Kurt Volker (Center for European Policy Analysis). Volker contends that NATO’s stance — conditioning Ukraine’s membership on the cessation of Russian aggression — sends the wrong signal. Putin interprets this stance as an opportunity to continue fighting, believing it gives him a chance of success. Volker proposes a shift in NATO’s approach, advocating for a clear message that Putin cannot defeat Ukraine and emphasizing the symbiosis between military and economic support. He challenges misconceptions about NATO’s Article 5 and suggests concrete steps, such as maritime demining and air defense participation, as a commitment to Ukraine’s defense without an immediate troop deployment. Volker urges swift action to bring Ukraine into NATO, aiming for a membership invitation at the Washington Summit in July 2024.
  3. The High Price of Losing Ukraine” by Frederick W. Kagan, Kateryna Stepanenko, Mitchell Belcher, Noel Mikkelsen, and Thomas Bergeron (Institute for the Study of War). The authors emphasize the significant stakes the United States has in Russia’s war on Ukraine. The potential consequences of a Russian victory, including a more formidable and combat-experienced Russian military threatening NATO’s borders, are outlined. The article argues that the overall military potential of the United States and NATO is much greater than that of Russia, but allowing Russia to win would entail substantial costs. The scenarios presented include a hypothetical scenario if Russia fully occupies Ukraine and the outcome of a full Ukrainian victory. The analysis contends that supporting Ukraine through continuous Western military assistance is much more advantageous and cost-effective for the United States than allowing Ukraine to lose.

Want to be notified when I write a new blog post? Sign up here.

I don’t spam!