Eliot Cohen, a professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University, suggests closing the topic of Ukraineʼs peace talks with Russia in a column for The Atlantic. Step by step, he destroys the position promoted by the Russians and shared by some of the American and European politicians ― that it is time to push for the armistice with Moscow. "Most of those who now assure that all wars end with negotiations, have demonstrated sluggish support for Ukraine throughout the entire war. And no, theyʼre not," Cohen writes. And provides examples: the Soviet Unionʼs war with Afghanistan ended simply with the withdrawal of Soviet troops. The 2003 US-Iraq war ended with the latterʼs surrender. And expecting peace negotiations between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler would be inappropriate. The same is true of this war, in which Ukrainians are fighting for their survival as a nation, and the fate of Putinʼs regime, depends on its results. Cohen also questions the thesis, which is actively spread in the West, that the winter can "freeze" the hostilities. The last active US military campaign that took place in winter was the Korean War 70 years ago, he writes. Instead, Ukrainians are fighting in wintertime since 2014 ― and, as the last nine months have shown, "Ukrainians can often teach their Western allies a lot of new things, not the other way around." Of course, the author continues, fearing escalation, the West can say that Ukraine chooses its own path, and it does not force it to do anything ― and at the same time reduce financial and military support for Kyiv. This is a typical story for diplomacy. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a critically important story for the world, Cohen is convinced. By its actions, the Kremlin endangered security in Europe and NATO countries, violating fundamental values and the world order. Therefore, the task of the allies is not mushy "help Ukraine defend itself", but specifically to help Kyiv repel Russian aggression and expel the invaders from its entire internationally recognized territory. “How will this lead the world to success (ie punish the agressor)? Of course, Ukrainian tanks will not come to Moscow to dictate the terms of the peace. However, the course of all Russian change, the defeat of its power on the periphery ― in the Crimea in the 1850s, in the war with Japan at the beginning of the 20th century, in Afghanistan in the 1980s ― led to political changes in the center. It is quite logical to see this as our goal," Cohen writes. As a conclusion, instead of the failed "negotiations about negotiations", the author proposes to provide Ukraine with all the necessary weapons, except for nuclear ones ― including ATACMS, Gepard tanks and F-16 fighters, which are in abundance in the warehouses of the allies. By the way, the thesis about the need for negotiations with Moscow has practically disappeared from the agenda of other major mass media ― on the contrary, they write about the need to win this war by military means. For example, the other day a column about it appeared in The Los Angeles Times.
The specialized media Defense News writes about the lack of weapons on the world market due to the fact that Western countries actively share their stocks with Ukraine. Defense ministers of NATO countries actively complained about this at the recent security forum in Halifax, Canada. Firstly, the Russian threat provoked a European country to actively build up its military potential. Sweden makes a particularly sharp jump in this, purchasing and contracting more weapons. Secondly, new weapons samples are needed in exchange for the old tanks or armored personnel carriers, which the allies are handing over to Kyiv. Thirdly, new types of weapons such as HIMARS or NLAWs are used in the Russian-Ukrainian war with high intensity ― they simply cannot be produced enough. Because ― and this is the fourth reason for the shortage ― "this is not the production of pencils," as Eric Fanning, head of the Aerospace Industries Association, which unites arms manufacturers, said. When countries reduced orders for new equipment in previous years, manufacturers cut capacity because itʼs simply too expensive to obtain production lines and component sets. Now, it takes time to ramp up production and activate component supply chains. As a result, countries compete with each other for contracts for the supply of weapons, prices rise ― and with increased military budgets, Western countries buy less than planned. Which can lead to political problems in these countries.
The war in Ukraine showed that a lot of security in the modern world depends on space. Former NATO Secretary General Alexander Fogh Rasmussen writes about this in a Financial Times column. It was thanks to space satellites that on the eve of the invasion it was possible to see where the Russian troops were gathered and how many there were. Precisely thanks to GPS coordination, high-precision HIMARS missiles made it possible to give Ukraine initiative in this wat. Thanks to Starlink, the Ukrainian military can quickly communicate with their command. "This is the first major conflict in which both sides actively rely on the opportunities provided by human exploration of space. And not the last one," Rasmussen writes. And turns to the risks that this new reality brings with it. First, objects in space can become military targets ― Russia, which considers Ukrainian critical civil infrastructure objects as legitimate military targets, threatens to attack private satellites as well. Secondly, the situation with Starlink showed that a single rich person can have a great influence even on events of a global scale. To avert this, Rasmussen proposes to make the satellite market more competitive ― and, as a separate solution, for Europe to become an active player in this market. And one more consequence is ecological. If in 2018 there were about two thousand satellites in near-Earth orbit, by the end of this century their number may reach one hundred thousand. Just like air, water and biodiversity, the space around the earth is a fragile system. In order not to disturb its balance, the world should develop a common policy regarding the rules by which satellites can be put into orbit.