Hey Subscribers, I am going to experiment with a “Ask Me Anything” chat session on Friday, 1/13/23 from 2-3 pm California time. Join me here to discuss recent posts or anything else on your mind.
Substack is keeping a lot of seniors from being full participants because we just cannot afford $50 times 10×20 to support every writer.  What about a senior discount?
In GEN Petraeus' words "tell me how this ends." Assuming we give AFU enough IFVs, HIMARs, tanks, there's no question they can (and should) push Putin's forces back to the status quo ante Feb 24, and probably to pre-2014 situation. But war objectives need to serve the peace we want after the war. 1. Which status quo ante (2022 or 2014) should we support? 2. Can we avoid creating a wounded and angry Russian state with a Putin regime even more dependent on anti-Western resentment for its domestic control than it is currently? 3. What does the shape of the larger (US & NATO) policy on sanctions look like, assuming robust Ukrainian progress on the ground?
I disagree with your conclusion that Putin is better than the "devil we don't know" in terms of what my emerge in Russian politics after the war. If you look at Putin's foreign policy--at least in terms of his goal of preventing further NATO expansion--the past couple of decades had been very successful, and very cheap. By creating what amounted to frozen conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine, Putin was able to create a situation that could have continued indefinitely, preventing either country from ever meeting the criteria for NATO accession.
Viewed in this light, Putin's actions in Ukraine seem downright bizarre. The man is a tyrant, but he never struck me as so colossally stupid as to do what he's done.
However, if you think like Smith and Buena de Mesquita that war is the continuation of domestic politics by other means, the situation makes a lot more sense. It seems to me that Putin must be responding to some kind of change--one that's not apparent to us because we're not privy to a lot of high-level maneuvering in Russian politics--in his supporting coalition. This makes me very concerned about who will be running Russia if Ukraine ever manages to expel Russian forces.
My personal prediction about what comes after is that we will see an intensification of confrontation between Russia and the West, either in terms of ongoing military pressure on NATO (perhaps even including border skirmishes in the Baltics), increased espionage and further efforts to destabilize democratic countries (including domestic terrorism and armed extremism).
I guess this isn't really a question, but it would be interesting to hear your reaction.
Under Orbán, how far has Hungary not been a faithful member of the West? To what extent has it hurt Western policies? How do you see its future in Nato and the EU?
Recently a group of doctors signed a statement about their concern regarding Navalny's health in prison. What is your prediction? Will Putin poison him or otherwise endanger his life in an attempt to kill him? Or will public opinion be able to save him?
In order to help Ukraine, it is necessary to open a second front inside Russia, the front of the struggle for the independence of the regions, for the collapse of the "Evil Empire".
Today, neither the West nor Ukraine knows how to end this war, drive the rashists out of the borders of 1991, it will not give anything, the shelling of Ukraine from the Moscow Federation or Muscovy will continue, then what happens, we must go to Moscow, as the allies in 1945 came to Berlin?
It is necessary for the regions inside Russia to separate from the center, from Moscow and the Kremlin, to take into their own hands the land, mineral resources and all federal property, the property of the oligarchs, since it does not belong to them anyway, but to the junta. Only when all the money ceases to flow and be controlled by the Kremlin, only then will Russia cease to threaten its neighbors, only then will the free regions be able to voluntarily unite in the Russian Union, like the European Union, sign the Charter of Self-Government
Russia is the "Empire of Evil", it is still a prison of peoples and the same Russian, and there will be no more "Beautiful Russia of the future" in this form, in the form of Muscovy.
The regions, in the struggle for independence, can be raised by local elites, let's not confuse with the bureaucracy that is now in power there, and even then half sent from Moscow. Real local elites, opinion leaders are removed from management and decision-making in the regions
Now many of them have left the country, we must collect and unite them. They should be taught to communicate with each other, with neighbors, so that after coming to power, they would be friends and develop each other together, compete with ideas, make the regions attractive for investment and people's lives. The elites must understand the goals and objectives, be on the same wavelength, the wave of democracy and development.
Democracy is about protecting the weak from the strong. The strong do business, unite, get involved in politics, protect their earnings, but who will protect the weak and create conditions for their development? This is the task and the main meaning of democracy.
Democracy is a consensus that allows the strong not to usurp power, but for society to influence the decision of the executive branch
The new elites must develop themselves and the whole society, create equal access to all benefits, must direct all income from the subsoil, land and property of the region for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the region, develop infrastructure, build schools, universities, and so on.
To do this, we all need to prepare an outline for the Constitution of the regions, each will have nuances and highlights of its region, but the basis, principles will be common. In the future, this will allow the regions to voluntarily unite into the Russian Union, similar to the EU, with a single Parliament and governing bodies for the cohabitation of all peoples and regions.
Joining the Russian Union is voluntary with the right to withdraw. Now in the EU all decisions are made unanimously, not by majority, and we should do the same. There should be no special conditions for anyone. It will be a true Confederation, with strong regions and small centers for solving common problems.
This is how Europe was formed. Before the First World War, there were 15 states in Europe, before the Second World War there were already 30, and now there are 60 and only 27 are united in the EU
The unification provides a common labor market, goods and services, open borders between regions, but at the same time there remains individual development and management, competition, entry into the international arena, and attraction of investments.
Each region will impose its own taxes, its own preferences for business, investors will choose the best conditions, the development of the region and the well-being of its citizens will depend on this.
All authorities (administration, police, judges) in the regions are elected, on the basis of competition, on the basis of ideas and opinions
The main ideas of the movement for the independence of the regions:
How concerned are you with the seemingly very effective cloistering of much of the Russian population? They seem to truly believe quite a lot of the Kremlin Ukraine war propaganda along with incredibly distorted views of their current regime and place in history
At the end of the day it’s likely many eastern regions of the current Ukraine will break off and become part of Russia, regions which were attached to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922. They have little in common with the hard core ultranationalists in western Ukraine who trace their roots to the WW2 era nationalist groups who collaborated with the Nazis and carried out their own ethnic cleansing against the Jews. In fact, social media is full of Ukrainian soldiers wearing Nazi iconography like it’s WW2 all over again.
In context of a Russian war against Ukraine and annexation of its territories (2014-?), as well as other wars led by Russia after collapse of USSR (Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, other), in a hindsight, what are the lessons we should learn, e.g. pertaining to
- implementation of security guarantees by the world leaders in exchange of major concessions (e.g. getting rid of nuclear arsenal)
- financial and political support of dictators (reset-перегрузка, NS1/NS2, etc.). Do you think we made reasonable tradeoffs and, for example, support from Moscow wrt. Osama bin Laden is worth current crisis
- "red lines" and their enforcement (and lack thereof).
What message collective West has been sending to the russian leadership till 2022, and is it different from the message we are sending to China to prevent aggression against its neighbors?
Thank you, and thank you for continuous support of Ukraine.
Do you concur with the recent US "war simulation" assessment that "if China attacks Taiwan, there will be no winners", and if so, how do you see the likely future actions of China re. Taiwan?
Well, I guess Michael McFaul has wasted most of our time. He asks us to ask him anything then he doesn't answer most of them. This is a sad Substance. I guess you have to pay him the $5 month subscription fee and even then there is no guaranteed.
Dear Michael McFaul, if I pay $5 month, will you at least address my question about the Minsk agreement in something more substantial than short terse answer? Something with meat in it.
Anyways, as I can't find the session, my question Ambassador, may you talk about your discussions about the Budapest Memorandum at the end of your tenure in Rusia? The USA was one of the countries that promised to protect Ukraine's borders.
As you are a full time activists on the Russian war in Ukraine, I hope you realize some of us cannot follow every war detail and nightly news report and print coverage of the war, and some days just need a break from all the data, details, etc which, of course, Ukrainians on the ground cannot do...???
A bureaucratic process question: in an age where communications and influence are so central, how well do we craft a national narrative and coordinate it across agencies/voices? I'm not talking about a new USIA, but the basic politico-bureaucratic function of crafting a narrative, and then ensuring that events get narrated.
I apologize for my english. Please tell me what the United States could really do to end the war in Europe? the US has the ability to stop this very quickly.
I have a better question: Isn't it the most reliable and secure to accept border changes and integrate the Ukraine with NATO and EU? Please explain...Thanks.
Mr.McFaul: What is your take on the controversy "Ukrainian activists against the attendies of San Francisco Opera"? Should the Ukrainian activists double down their efforts in explaining the Americans that attending Russian operas is wrong? Should they sue the opera house for letting this promotion of Russian culture to happen?
Some context: Back in October San Francisco Opera put on stage "Eugene Onegin", an opera based on a novel in verses of an afro-Russian poet Alexander Pushkin and a gay Russian composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. During the premiere the Ukrainian activists stood in from of opera house shouting "By watching the opera you help in killing!". Approximately three thousands of Americans passed the protesters and nobody cared - they just enetered the opera house, listened the opera and were enjoying eating the stake in the opera's restaurant. What should be the strategy of the Ukrainian activists to overcome this tone deafness?
Hello Ambassador McFaul. Perhaps a bit off-topic from your great insights on Russia essays... but, as you've written, this war is going on for awhile. And there are enormous war-time and then post-war needs in the region. Perhaps you know of orgs in the US, or US corporations that are particularly effective in helping in Ukraine now.... either humanitarian or with keeping Ukranians employed so their tax income can help their government sustain/thrive. Many thx.
Will we ever get an explanation for Merrick Garland’s malaise? Why has it taken two years to bring obvious insurrectionists to justice? They are in Congress -they are on the judicial committee-they have access to state secrets. I don’t trust them and I don’t think Merrick Garland should either.
What is your view on FLEX, the Youth Exchange program, and how has this program benefited both the Eastern European and Eurasian regions since Senator Bradley initiated it in 1993?
Biden has been clear that Ukraine should not be forced to give up any of its territory to Russia, even if it means prolonging the war and the suffering. Yet he insists that the Palestine Authority be willing to give up large swathes of the West Bank to Israel, that Syria should allow the Israelis to hold on to the Golan, and that the people of occupied Western Sahara should accept their incorporation into Morocco. Why does Biden take the correct position that Russia should not be able to expand their borders by force but then insist that it's okay for Israel and Morocco to do so? Is it because Ukrainians are white? Is it because Morocco and Israel are U.S. allies? Is it because he believes Washington has the right to determine which countries must abide by international law and which one can get away with violating such principles?
In hindsight, would it not have been better for the West to have genuinely pursued the Minsk agreements in good faith instead of using the Minsk agreement as a ruse to arm Ukraine?
Certainly allowing the Donbas region a degree of autonomy from Kiev while remaining a part of Ukraine would have been far, far better than the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction, the tens of billions spent, the rampant inflation in the West, the utter destruction of West/Russia relations and a new Multipolar world?
Petro Porochenko, Angela Merkel and François Hollande have admitted that the Minsk agreements were a way to buy time to arm Ukraine thus proving that the West and Kiev pursued the path to the current situation.
Additionally, the US, a signatory to the UN resolution affirming the Minsk agreement along with many other Western nations are also guilty of being disingenuous by arming Ukraine after signing the UN resolution.
On the other hand, Russia did not press Kiev on the military front as they could have had there been no Minsk agreement. Ukraine was in a far weaker position militarily back then in 2014/2015 and would have capitulated with far less catastrophic consequences had Russia settled the matter then and there.
Had the Minsk agreements been genuinely pursued at least by the West, the Kiev government would have had to settle the matter in a manner that would have been far less catastrophic.
It is hard to see how the current situation is not by far the worst of all three possibilities. A great and unnecessary tragedy has occurred and the gains seem paltry in comparison.
Are you still optimistic regarding Russia’s modernization and democratization in the long term, cf. the conclusion of your book From Cold War to Hot Peace?
Breaking up Russia creates even more issues that do not necessarily guarantee peace for Ukraine. One solution is just to tie this albatross around Putin’s and his henchmen’s necks and do not repeat the mistakes regarding Germany after WW1. Use WW2 methods instead that focused on the perpetrators.
Myself and others spoken with believe the UN must be rebuilt. Ideally, the threat of punishment is enough to avoid the violation of agreements (int'l law) entirely. However, if a violation occurs, logic states that accountability (enforcement/punishment) should have enough influence to move the violator to end their behavior as soon as possible (the parent-child relationship can exemplify this dynamic). Russia shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, the opposite is arguable. This suggests the UN and its mechanisms for both prevention and accountability have failed, and certain Ukrainians I've spoken with no longer consider the UN's voice credible. If you disagree with the first sentence, my friends and I would be curious to know your supporting logic.
I fail to understand why Israel refuses to provide military aid to Ukraine? Israel is among very few countries that could provide Ukraine with air defense systems, including the Iron Dome, yet it refuses to do so.
Five decades ago Israel seized through warfare the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, in violation of international law. And to this day, Israel continues to abuse Palestinians human rights. Sound familiar? Israel’s concern is about upsetting its relationship with Russia and maintaining their occupation, not Ukraine.
It is also a disgrace Israel does not “pay it forward” with military aid to Ukraine, as they received in WW2.
Former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul has stated quite the whopper. He claimed that Vladimir Putin:
"stated several goals. Most ambitiously, he aimed to rid the world of Ukraine entirely."
An apocalyptic motive supposedly stated in Vladimir Putin's Essay and his pre February 24 speech which Michael McFaul references. That is not what an unbiased reader of Vladimir Putin's statements would conclude.
Dear Michael McFaul, please state clearly how you came to that conclusion.
I read Vladimir Putin's entire essay and the transcript of his speech and the closest statements I could find was when Vladimir Putin, in his essay stated the following two paragraphs regarding Ukraine:
"You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.
In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people's views."
This was the most "blunt" statement about the fate of Ukraine. If this is what you were referring to then your claim that Putin "aimed to rid the world of Ukraine entirely" is not supported.
Vladimir Putin clearly claims that the territory added to Ukraine by the Bolsheviks in 1922, the East and South of Ukraine, and the Crimea, added in 1954, should be returned to Russia because that's not what Ukraine "brought to the table".
What did Ukraine, bring to the table before the Soviet Union? The following graphic is important in understanding this:
Ukraine "brought to the table" the Central and the North West parts of Ukraine in 1922. During World War II, they also "brought" the Western part of Ukraine at the expense of Poland and 100,000 Poles and Jews who were exterminated by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and nationalists in Volhynia and Eastern Galacia.
Even so, Vladimir Putin says that there is room for discussion and negotiation.
If you look at the territory Russia is trying to occupy and has already acquired, Russia seems intent on reacquiring the land given to Ukraine in 1922 and the Crimea in 1954.
Yes. Theoretically up to 40% of Ukraine which was never part of pre Soviet Union Ukraine, or what could be called Ukraine, and which have millions of Russians could be returned to Russia who were stranded in "Ukraine" when the Soviet Union broke up.
Therefore, Vladimir Putin was not saying that he would "rid the world of Ukraine entirely". Ukrainians would have Ukraine and Russians would be in Russia. At least that is what these two paragraphs indicate if an unbiased person read them.
This is a reasonable aim as Ukraine has passed a law that would only recognize minorities that had no state outside Ukraine. This means that Russian Ukranians would not be considered a protected minority and could have their language and culture erased. Vladimir Putin stated that. If Russians have no place in Ukraine then Russians along with their land will return to Russia. Completely reasonable to an unbiased person.
Additionally, the recent revelations that Petro Porochenko, Angela Merkel and François Hollande used the Minsk agreements to buy time to arm Ukraine rather than try to find a peaceful resolution that gave the Donbas a degree of autonomy.
Again Former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, please explain where Putin's blunt statement that he would "rid the world of Ukraine entirely" is stated in those two references.
In your former position as United States Ambassador to the Russian Federation, during Russia’s military buildup along Ukrainian border to present day hostilities, what would your “day to day” or “month to month” activities be like as United States senior Diplomat in Russia- specifically related to impending and/or active hostilities? Seeking perspective on what tools an Ambassador has at their disposal to affect positive outcomes when the host nation is preparing for war or in active conflict? In your opinion, could the present administration have done more and what could future administrations do to potentially avoid conflict?
A while ago, you asked in all seriousness, what leverage does Biden/USA have over Russia, and this has bugged me ever since. How about this.
With Russia's build up in Belarus, feint or diversion or invasion preparation, could NATO (rather than just USA) privately give a red line that any invasion from that direction WILL mean an unspecified STRONG NATO military reaction, a real escalation.
And of course NATO MUST plan for that reaction, war game it, if Russia still decides to go ahead... I have no idea of what might be best but this could be sinking Russian ships, threatening Kalingrad, destroying the Russian bomber fleet, whatever the experts decide ...
If Russia does back down then NATO does have leverage. If Russia doesn't back down, then it might means Russia needs an excuse to get out of Ukraine. Simplistic, I realise ...
You say that Ukraine is winning but evidence points to Russia winning. Can you justify your position with solid evidence?
Plenty of evidence of Russia being the victor appears directly from the front lines that dispute the claim that Ukraine is winning which is only parroted by those a comfortable distance from the front lines.
Please examine the evidence below contradicting your claims. These are just a sample of what is coming directly from the front lines.
Videos from Ukrainian and Russian forces showing 16 year old soldiers on the front lines. Example:
How do you see post-Putin Russia? Obviously depends on result of the war, but still. Any factions/trends in RU society you think are currently underestimated in news coverage? Is partial breakup of “provinces” into 1991-type independent states even possible? Thank you.
As someone who supports Biden's policy vis-a-vis Ukraine, I am curious as to WHY he has taken such a strong position.
It's not because he opposes illegal wars of aggression that violate the UN Charter, since he supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was also an illegal war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter.
It's not because he opposes countries illegally annexing territories seized by force, since his is the only government in the world that has formally recognized Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan region of Syria and Morocco's illegal annexation of the entire country of Western Sahara.
And it's not because he opposes countries bombing civilian targets, since he has defended Israeli and Saudi bombings of civilian areas and even supports providing those governments with the weapons to do so.
So, if Biden's defense of Ukraine is not based on principle, what is it? Is it simply geopolitics? Is it because he wants to "weaken Russia"?
Again, I'm not objecting to his policy towards Ukraine per se. I'm just curious as to what is actually motivating him.
Seeing lots of great question already. Ill try to ander the all tomorrow.
Substack is keeping a lot of seniors from being full participants because we just cannot afford $50 times 10×20 to support every writer.  What about a senior discount?
In GEN Petraeus' words "tell me how this ends." Assuming we give AFU enough IFVs, HIMARs, tanks, there's no question they can (and should) push Putin's forces back to the status quo ante Feb 24, and probably to pre-2014 situation. But war objectives need to serve the peace we want after the war. 1. Which status quo ante (2022 or 2014) should we support? 2. Can we avoid creating a wounded and angry Russian state with a Putin regime even more dependent on anti-Western resentment for its domestic control than it is currently? 3. What does the shape of the larger (US & NATO) policy on sanctions look like, assuming robust Ukrainian progress on the ground?
ok: Is Obama funnier in private?!
I disagree with your conclusion that Putin is better than the "devil we don't know" in terms of what my emerge in Russian politics after the war. If you look at Putin's foreign policy--at least in terms of his goal of preventing further NATO expansion--the past couple of decades had been very successful, and very cheap. By creating what amounted to frozen conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine, Putin was able to create a situation that could have continued indefinitely, preventing either country from ever meeting the criteria for NATO accession.
Viewed in this light, Putin's actions in Ukraine seem downright bizarre. The man is a tyrant, but he never struck me as so colossally stupid as to do what he's done.
However, if you think like Smith and Buena de Mesquita that war is the continuation of domestic politics by other means, the situation makes a lot more sense. It seems to me that Putin must be responding to some kind of change--one that's not apparent to us because we're not privy to a lot of high-level maneuvering in Russian politics--in his supporting coalition. This makes me very concerned about who will be running Russia if Ukraine ever manages to expel Russian forces.
My personal prediction about what comes after is that we will see an intensification of confrontation between Russia and the West, either in terms of ongoing military pressure on NATO (perhaps even including border skirmishes in the Baltics), increased espionage and further efforts to destabilize democratic countries (including domestic terrorism and armed extremism).
I guess this isn't really a question, but it would be interesting to hear your reaction.
Regards,
--js
How can people globally get their countries to help Ukraine militarily
Under Orbán, how far has Hungary not been a faithful member of the West? To what extent has it hurt Western policies? How do you see its future in Nato and the EU?
Recently a group of doctors signed a statement about their concern regarding Navalny's health in prison. What is your prediction? Will Putin poison him or otherwise endanger his life in an attempt to kill him? Or will public opinion be able to save him?
Freedom to the regions!!!
Russian Union.
In order to help Ukraine, it is necessary to open a second front inside Russia, the front of the struggle for the independence of the regions, for the collapse of the "Evil Empire".
Today, neither the West nor Ukraine knows how to end this war, drive the rashists out of the borders of 1991, it will not give anything, the shelling of Ukraine from the Moscow Federation or Muscovy will continue, then what happens, we must go to Moscow, as the allies in 1945 came to Berlin?
It is necessary for the regions inside Russia to separate from the center, from Moscow and the Kremlin, to take into their own hands the land, mineral resources and all federal property, the property of the oligarchs, since it does not belong to them anyway, but to the junta. Only when all the money ceases to flow and be controlled by the Kremlin, only then will Russia cease to threaten its neighbors, only then will the free regions be able to voluntarily unite in the Russian Union, like the European Union, sign the Charter of Self-Government
Russia is the "Empire of Evil", it is still a prison of peoples and the same Russian, and there will be no more "Beautiful Russia of the future" in this form, in the form of Muscovy.
The regions, in the struggle for independence, can be raised by local elites, let's not confuse with the bureaucracy that is now in power there, and even then half sent from Moscow. Real local elites, opinion leaders are removed from management and decision-making in the regions
Now many of them have left the country, we must collect and unite them. They should be taught to communicate with each other, with neighbors, so that after coming to power, they would be friends and develop each other together, compete with ideas, make the regions attractive for investment and people's lives. The elites must understand the goals and objectives, be on the same wavelength, the wave of democracy and development.
Democracy is about protecting the weak from the strong. The strong do business, unite, get involved in politics, protect their earnings, but who will protect the weak and create conditions for their development? This is the task and the main meaning of democracy.
Democracy is a consensus that allows the strong not to usurp power, but for society to influence the decision of the executive branch
The new elites must develop themselves and the whole society, create equal access to all benefits, must direct all income from the subsoil, land and property of the region for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the region, develop infrastructure, build schools, universities, and so on.
To do this, we all need to prepare an outline for the Constitution of the regions, each will have nuances and highlights of its region, but the basis, principles will be common. In the future, this will allow the regions to voluntarily unite into the Russian Union, similar to the EU, with a single Parliament and governing bodies for the cohabitation of all peoples and regions.
Joining the Russian Union is voluntary with the right to withdraw. Now in the EU all decisions are made unanimously, not by majority, and we should do the same. There should be no special conditions for anyone. It will be a true Confederation, with strong regions and small centers for solving common problems.
This is how Europe was formed. Before the First World War, there were 15 states in Europe, before the Second World War there were already 30, and now there are 60 and only 27 are united in the EU
The unification provides a common labor market, goods and services, open borders between regions, but at the same time there remains individual development and management, competition, entry into the international arena, and attraction of investments.
Each region will impose its own taxes, its own preferences for business, investors will choose the best conditions, the development of the region and the well-being of its citizens will depend on this.
All authorities (administration, police, judges) in the regions are elected, on the basis of competition, on the basis of ideas and opinions
The main ideas of the movement for the independence of the regions:
- Freedom to regions and peoples!!!
- Democracy!!!
Glory to Ukraine!!!
How concerned are you with the seemingly very effective cloistering of much of the Russian population? They seem to truly believe quite a lot of the Kremlin Ukraine war propaganda along with incredibly distorted views of their current regime and place in history
At the end of the day it’s likely many eastern regions of the current Ukraine will break off and become part of Russia, regions which were attached to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922. They have little in common with the hard core ultranationalists in western Ukraine who trace their roots to the WW2 era nationalist groups who collaborated with the Nazis and carried out their own ethnic cleansing against the Jews. In fact, social media is full of Ukrainian soldiers wearing Nazi iconography like it’s WW2 all over again.
In context of a Russian war against Ukraine and annexation of its territories (2014-?), as well as other wars led by Russia after collapse of USSR (Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, other), in a hindsight, what are the lessons we should learn, e.g. pertaining to
- implementation of security guarantees by the world leaders in exchange of major concessions (e.g. getting rid of nuclear arsenal)
- financial and political support of dictators (reset-перегрузка, NS1/NS2, etc.). Do you think we made reasonable tradeoffs and, for example, support from Moscow wrt. Osama bin Laden is worth current crisis
- "red lines" and their enforcement (and lack thereof).
What message collective West has been sending to the russian leadership till 2022, and is it different from the message we are sending to China to prevent aggression against its neighbors?
Thank you, and thank you for continuous support of Ukraine.
Is Putin/Russia financially supporting antidemocracy politicians, countries, movemnts around the workd?
Putin is evil
Since it's Friday the 13th; Are you superstitious?
Thank you for this opportunity!
Do you concur with the recent US "war simulation" assessment that "if China attacks Taiwan, there will be no winners", and if so, how do you see the likely future actions of China re. Taiwan?
Well, I guess Michael McFaul has wasted most of our time. He asks us to ask him anything then he doesn't answer most of them. This is a sad Substance. I guess you have to pay him the $5 month subscription fee and even then there is no guaranteed.
Dear Michael McFaul, if I pay $5 month, will you at least address my question about the Minsk agreement in something more substantial than short terse answer? Something with meat in it.
Thanks.
Global Happiness Effort
I hope you all are all right over there https://eurofresh.se/european-vision/
I don’t understand how to communicate in this Substack
Is this a video session in Google Meet of just a word chat ihere in Subtrack? Re Ask me Anything
Bummer, can’t afford a subscription.
Anyways, as I can't find the session, my question Ambassador, may you talk about your discussions about the Budapest Memorandum at the end of your tenure in Rusia? The USA was one of the countries that promised to protect Ukraine's borders.
As you are a full time activists on the Russian war in Ukraine, I hope you realize some of us cannot follow every war detail and nightly news report and print coverage of the war, and some days just need a break from all the data, details, etc which, of course, Ukrainians on the ground cannot do...???
Bob Langfelder
Where is everyone. I get the message that I am the only one there "To join the meeting on Google Meet, click this link:
https://meet.google.com/rni-urhb-wuj "
A bureaucratic process question: in an age where communications and influence are so central, how well do we craft a national narrative and coordinate it across agencies/voices? I'm not talking about a new USIA, but the basic politico-bureaucratic function of crafting a narrative, and then ensuring that events get narrated.
I apologize for my english. Please tell me what the United States could really do to end the war in Europe? the US has the ability to stop this very quickly.
I have a better question: Isn't it the most reliable and secure to accept border changes and integrate the Ukraine with NATO and EU? Please explain...Thanks.
Who are the people in Putin's inner circle and can anyone influence him ? Is it true that Dimitry Medvedev is always drunk ?
Mr.McFaul: What is your take on the controversy "Ukrainian activists against the attendies of San Francisco Opera"? Should the Ukrainian activists double down their efforts in explaining the Americans that attending Russian operas is wrong? Should they sue the opera house for letting this promotion of Russian culture to happen?
Some context: Back in October San Francisco Opera put on stage "Eugene Onegin", an opera based on a novel in verses of an afro-Russian poet Alexander Pushkin and a gay Russian composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. During the premiere the Ukrainian activists stood in from of opera house shouting "By watching the opera you help in killing!". Approximately three thousands of Americans passed the protesters and nobody cared - they just enetered the opera house, listened the opera and were enjoying eating the stake in the opera's restaurant. What should be the strategy of the Ukrainian activists to overcome this tone deafness?
Hello Ambassador McFaul. Perhaps a bit off-topic from your great insights on Russia essays... but, as you've written, this war is going on for awhile. And there are enormous war-time and then post-war needs in the region. Perhaps you know of orgs in the US, or US corporations that are particularly effective in helping in Ukraine now.... either humanitarian or with keeping Ukranians employed so their tax income can help their government sustain/thrive. Many thx.
Is the war in Ukraine about the language hegemony and tax payers to central powers?
Will we ever get an explanation for Merrick Garland’s malaise? Why has it taken two years to bring obvious insurrectionists to justice? They are in Congress -they are on the judicial committee-they have access to state secrets. I don’t trust them and I don’t think Merrick Garland should either.
How to fix the error?
What is your view on FLEX, the Youth Exchange program, and how has this program benefited both the Eastern European and Eurasian regions since Senator Bradley initiated it in 1993?
Biden has been clear that Ukraine should not be forced to give up any of its territory to Russia, even if it means prolonging the war and the suffering. Yet he insists that the Palestine Authority be willing to give up large swathes of the West Bank to Israel, that Syria should allow the Israelis to hold on to the Golan, and that the people of occupied Western Sahara should accept their incorporation into Morocco. Why does Biden take the correct position that Russia should not be able to expand their borders by force but then insist that it's okay for Israel and Morocco to do so? Is it because Ukrainians are white? Is it because Morocco and Israel are U.S. allies? Is it because he believes Washington has the right to determine which countries must abide by international law and which one can get away with violating such principles?
In hindsight, would it not have been better for the West to have genuinely pursued the Minsk agreements in good faith instead of using the Minsk agreement as a ruse to arm Ukraine?
Certainly allowing the Donbas region a degree of autonomy from Kiev while remaining a part of Ukraine would have been far, far better than the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction, the tens of billions spent, the rampant inflation in the West, the utter destruction of West/Russia relations and a new Multipolar world?
Petro Porochenko, Angela Merkel and François Hollande have admitted that the Minsk agreements were a way to buy time to arm Ukraine thus proving that the West and Kiev pursued the path to the current situation.
Additionally, the US, a signatory to the UN resolution affirming the Minsk agreement along with many other Western nations are also guilty of being disingenuous by arming Ukraine after signing the UN resolution.
On the other hand, Russia did not press Kiev on the military front as they could have had there been no Minsk agreement. Ukraine was in a far weaker position militarily back then in 2014/2015 and would have capitulated with far less catastrophic consequences had Russia settled the matter then and there.
Had the Minsk agreements been genuinely pursued at least by the West, the Kiev government would have had to settle the matter in a manner that would have been far less catastrophic.
It is hard to see how the current situation is not by far the worst of all three possibilities. A great and unnecessary tragedy has occurred and the gains seem paltry in comparison.
Thank you.
Global Happiness Effort
Are you still optimistic regarding Russia’s modernization and democratization in the long term, cf. the conclusion of your book From Cold War to Hot Peace?
Breaking up Russia creates even more issues that do not necessarily guarantee peace for Ukraine. One solution is just to tie this albatross around Putin’s and his henchmen’s necks and do not repeat the mistakes regarding Germany after WW1. Use WW2 methods instead that focused on the perpetrators.
Lots of great questions & comments!! Looking forward to your response!!
Myself and others spoken with believe the UN must be rebuilt. Ideally, the threat of punishment is enough to avoid the violation of agreements (int'l law) entirely. However, if a violation occurs, logic states that accountability (enforcement/punishment) should have enough influence to move the violator to end their behavior as soon as possible (the parent-child relationship can exemplify this dynamic). Russia shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, the opposite is arguable. This suggests the UN and its mechanisms for both prevention and accountability have failed, and certain Ukrainians I've spoken with no longer consider the UN's voice credible. If you disagree with the first sentence, my friends and I would be curious to know your supporting logic.
I fail to understand why Israel refuses to provide military aid to Ukraine? Israel is among very few countries that could provide Ukraine with air defense systems, including the Iron Dome, yet it refuses to do so.
Five decades ago Israel seized through warfare the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, in violation of international law. And to this day, Israel continues to abuse Palestinians human rights. Sound familiar? Israel’s concern is about upsetting its relationship with Russia and maintaining their occupation, not Ukraine.
It is also a disgrace Israel does not “pay it forward” with military aid to Ukraine, as they received in WW2.
Not to see the thread hijacked further, my apologies. Your beliefs are blind, imho. Let's hope McPhaul will address your question.
Former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul has stated quite the whopper. He claimed that Vladimir Putin:
"stated several goals. Most ambitiously, he aimed to rid the world of Ukraine entirely."
An apocalyptic motive supposedly stated in Vladimir Putin's Essay and his pre February 24 speech which Michael McFaul references. That is not what an unbiased reader of Vladimir Putin's statements would conclude.
Dear Michael McFaul, please state clearly how you came to that conclusion.
I read Vladimir Putin's entire essay and the transcript of his speech and the closest statements I could find was when Vladimir Putin, in his essay stated the following two paragraphs regarding Ukraine:
"You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.
In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people's views."
This was the most "blunt" statement about the fate of Ukraine. If this is what you were referring to then your claim that Putin "aimed to rid the world of Ukraine entirely" is not supported.
Vladimir Putin clearly claims that the territory added to Ukraine by the Bolsheviks in 1922, the East and South of Ukraine, and the Crimea, added in 1954, should be returned to Russia because that's not what Ukraine "brought to the table".
What did Ukraine, bring to the table before the Soviet Union? The following graphic is important in understanding this:
https://twitter.com/Cali55Electors/status/1611540120963883010?t=5XMmRpAp0_1_jiWQVJd7Ew&s=19
Ukraine "brought to the table" the Central and the North West parts of Ukraine in 1922. During World War II, they also "brought" the Western part of Ukraine at the expense of Poland and 100,000 Poles and Jews who were exterminated by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and nationalists in Volhynia and Eastern Galacia.
Even so, Vladimir Putin says that there is room for discussion and negotiation.
If you look at the territory Russia is trying to occupy and has already acquired, Russia seems intent on reacquiring the land given to Ukraine in 1922 and the Crimea in 1954.
Yes. Theoretically up to 40% of Ukraine which was never part of pre Soviet Union Ukraine, or what could be called Ukraine, and which have millions of Russians could be returned to Russia who were stranded in "Ukraine" when the Soviet Union broke up.
Therefore, Vladimir Putin was not saying that he would "rid the world of Ukraine entirely". Ukrainians would have Ukraine and Russians would be in Russia. At least that is what these two paragraphs indicate if an unbiased person read them.
This is a reasonable aim as Ukraine has passed a law that would only recognize minorities that had no state outside Ukraine. This means that Russian Ukranians would not be considered a protected minority and could have their language and culture erased. Vladimir Putin stated that. If Russians have no place in Ukraine then Russians along with their land will return to Russia. Completely reasonable to an unbiased person.
Additionally, the recent revelations that Petro Porochenko, Angela Merkel and François Hollande used the Minsk agreements to buy time to arm Ukraine rather than try to find a peaceful resolution that gave the Donbas a degree of autonomy.
Again Former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, please explain where Putin's blunt statement that he would "rid the world of Ukraine entirely" is stated in those two references.
Thank you,
Global Happiness Effort
In your former position as United States Ambassador to the Russian Federation, during Russia’s military buildup along Ukrainian border to present day hostilities, what would your “day to day” or “month to month” activities be like as United States senior Diplomat in Russia- specifically related to impending and/or active hostilities? Seeking perspective on what tools an Ambassador has at their disposal to affect positive outcomes when the host nation is preparing for war or in active conflict? In your opinion, could the present administration have done more and what could future administrations do to potentially avoid conflict?
A while ago, you asked in all seriousness, what leverage does Biden/USA have over Russia, and this has bugged me ever since. How about this.
With Russia's build up in Belarus, feint or diversion or invasion preparation, could NATO (rather than just USA) privately give a red line that any invasion from that direction WILL mean an unspecified STRONG NATO military reaction, a real escalation.
And of course NATO MUST plan for that reaction, war game it, if Russia still decides to go ahead... I have no idea of what might be best but this could be sinking Russian ships, threatening Kalingrad, destroying the Russian bomber fleet, whatever the experts decide ...
If Russia does back down then NATO does have leverage. If Russia doesn't back down, then it might means Russia needs an excuse to get out of Ukraine. Simplistic, I realise ...
Do you think Russia has something on Trump?
Do you envision Putin withdrawing voluntarily from Ukraine or do you think the Russians will have to be physically pushed out?
You say that Ukraine is winning but evidence points to Russia winning. Can you justify your position with solid evidence?
Plenty of evidence of Russia being the victor appears directly from the front lines that dispute the claim that Ukraine is winning which is only parroted by those a comfortable distance from the front lines.
Please examine the evidence below contradicting your claims. These are just a sample of what is coming directly from the front lines.
Videos from Ukrainian and Russian forces showing 16 year old soldiers on the front lines. Example:
https://twitter.com/BlackRussian84/status/1612087239810351104?t=pAJkGqQKGqaVY1eb31C-FA&s=19
https://twitter.com/DrvnkUncleZ/status/1610680149317681152?t=4Id6VixXbIG3mCd3Wkc4sg&s=19
Videos of Ukranians saying how they are abandoning their positions and are in open revolt of Kiev:
https://twitter.com/Cali55Electors/status/1612868428104142858?t=KaSkw_90lM0s2mNlCRL1rA&s=19
https://twitter.com/Cali55Electors/status/1611738381586731013?t=MjGKb6swM5YdchKqyaDP1A&s=19
https://twitter.com/AdamekMiroslav/status/1612024420800815104?t=U6Y_onDPxFfOWJJBYfuiSg&s=19
Ukrainian's resisting enlistment:
https://twitter.com/DrvnkUncleZ/status/1612174576900784129?t=hMJmfQ-ukAEpsnLrXKLYaA&s=19
https://twitter.com/DrvnkUncleZ/status/1611389197922738179?t=yduGtNSW77Ku9FDoprGMiQ&s=19
This does not look like a strong army but rather a depleted one with low morale.
On the other hand, Russian forces have no such issues. To the contrary they are taking on all of NATO's proxy army quite well.
Endless trainloads of Russian equipment:
https://twitter.com/Safarnejad_IR/status/1611988997169115137?t=Ox9Jm8yT2-jHYgYUjJyGoQ&s=19
https://twitter.com/GabeZZOZZ/status/1611780686964219904?t=o0JiYNIar0WDhJfHZRQYRA&s=19
https://twitter.com/DrvnkUncleZ/status/1611416937753362452?t=JETFX5WM71m_2YGv3vIRdw&s=19
Brutal fighting with Russia looking far more professional than Ukraine and Russia is clearly prevailing:
https://twitter.com/Cali55Electors/status/1613240468330151936?t=p2DHGGPPp0HyVWFm8XZcKA&s=19
The city of Kiev is preparing for a new Russian assault:
https://twitter.com/MaimunkaNews/status/1612881942126465024?t=2He1LtRqkJAYTmAx28Yayg&s=19
While I do not like Tucker Carlson, he has been hitting the nail on the head when it comes to Ukraine:
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1612837291466149888?t=-WxY8Gp3ACQmir-9XKm3Bg&s=19
Furthermore, Trumpist House Republicans have McCarthy on a short leash and will not pass much if any new funding for Ukraine.
Thank you,
Global Happiness Effort.
How do you see post-Putin Russia? Obviously depends on result of the war, but still. Any factions/trends in RU society you think are currently underestimated in news coverage? Is partial breakup of “provinces” into 1991-type independent states even possible? Thank you.
As someone who supports Biden's policy vis-a-vis Ukraine, I am curious as to WHY he has taken such a strong position.
It's not because he opposes illegal wars of aggression that violate the UN Charter, since he supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was also an illegal war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter.
It's not because he opposes countries illegally annexing territories seized by force, since his is the only government in the world that has formally recognized Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan region of Syria and Morocco's illegal annexation of the entire country of Western Sahara.
And it's not because he opposes countries bombing civilian targets, since he has defended Israeli and Saudi bombings of civilian areas and even supports providing those governments with the weapons to do so.
So, if Biden's defense of Ukraine is not based on principle, what is it? Is it simply geopolitics? Is it because he wants to "weaken Russia"?
Again, I'm not objecting to his policy towards Ukraine per se. I'm just curious as to what is actually motivating him.