Treaties

It's strange how the debate about Ukraine plays out over at Althouse: so much apology for Putin and running down of Zelensky. The case seems straightforward enough. Russia may claim to have been provoked by threats of Ukraine joining NATO, but that's symmetric: Ukraine looked to join NATO because it was threatened by Russia. In any event, Russia did the invading. Cheer for David, hope Goliath gets his comeupance.

Except that Golaith, though getting badly battered, seems to be winning the slog. If they're willing to spend the men and materiel, it looks like Russia can win.

Ukraine seems to be losing, and there's not a whale of a lot more we can do about that without starting a war between us and Russia. Some of our wonderful tech is already looking a bit obsolete, too.

Can the Europeans save them? Unless they've been building up the armaments and armies while I wasn't looking, then no.

(Is China helping the Russians with materiel? Yes. Are they helping them with deniable harrassment of the European nations by cutting undersea cables? Sure looks like it. When they get their pound of flesh out of Russia for their assistance, will China be stronger?)

Even if we stipulate that Zelensky is on the side of the angels (he certainly has guts!), the Ukrainians are probably best served by cutting their losses. That doesn't mean we wish Putin any good, or Zelensky any bad. It's just bowing to the inevitable.

It doesn't mean a peace treaty would be just. I gather it's a bit clever, though, putting in a kind of indirect guarantee; though not a very firm one.

Perhaps it sticks in people's craws to try to force an unjust peace treaty on a nation, and so they come up with reasons to blame the victim. Or try to look the other way.