The endless military conflict in Ukraine is going to the detriment of national and international security
The conflict in Ukraine will hurt everyone, including the United States itself, WP writes. It is in Washington's interests to contribute to the end of the crisis, but instead Biden announces a new "help" to Kiev.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
What are the goals of the United States in the Ukrainian conflict? Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recently announced that the United States wants to "weaken Russia to such an extent that it cannot do such things as it did in Ukraine." The United States is very determined. Congress almost unanimously passed the lend-lease law for Ukraine, evoking memories of the "arsenal of democracy" that we provided to Britain during the Second World War. President Biden is seeking approval of an additional $33 billion in aid. When defense ministers from 40 countries gathered at Ramstein Air Base in Germany last month, they talked mostly not about a peaceful settlement, but about the victory of Ukraine or at least about the "constant weakening" of Russia's military power.
But the violence continues, the military hysteria is intensifying, and it is better for us to state our goals clearly and clearly. A prolonged and painful indirect military conflict with Russia will have the most serious consequences not only for the Ukrainian people, but also for the security of the United States and its allies.
<…>
About a third of Ukrainian infrastructure facilities have been damaged or destroyed. These are roads, railways, bridges. There will be new destruction. According to forecasts, the Ukrainian economy will shrink by almost half this year. Even if the conflict ends tomorrow, it will take years to restore and return to the original level of production, and hundreds of billions of dollars will be required.
Moreover, at a time when the world economy is suffering from a pandemic, this crisis and the sanctions imposed against Russia are intensifying global turmoil. Last year, Russia ranked first in the world in natural gas exports, second in oil exports and third in coal exports. It is a world leader in uranium enrichment for nuclear power plants. Naturally, after the start of the military special operation, the prices of this fuel rose sharply. In particular, our allies from Europe have suffered from this. And American citizens are suffering from rising global prices for steel, aluminum, car batteries, computer chips and much more. This will inevitably weaken the level of support for the conflict, and the costs of its management will increase.
Russia and Ukraine together provide 30% of wheat and 20% of corn supplies to the world market, as evidenced by the data of the UN World Food Program. In addition, they supply three—quarters of the world's sunflower oil and a third of barley. Russia is also a key supplier of raw materials for the production of fertilizers.
In our hemisphere, many Latin American countries are already facing a shortage of fertilizers. Brazil's agriculture is in particular danger. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 14 African countries half meet their wheat needs due to supplies from Russia and Ukraine. At the top of this list are Eritrea (100 percent), Somalia (over 90 percent) and Egypt (almost 75 percent). If the conflict drags on, it will doom another 47 million people to terrible hunger, experts warn.
It will inevitably strengthen the positions of militant hawks in both the United States and Russia. Because of this, any peaceful settlement will be difficult. To justify the increase in costs, each side needs to excite patriotic fervor and emphasize how high the stakes are. Against the background of what is happening, nuclear arsenals loom. Throughout the Cold War, Washington, together with its allies, tried to prevent a war with Russia. They remained silent even when Moscow suppressed the independence movements in Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Therefore, the statements of the current leaders about the constant weakening of Russia are an extreme degree of irresponsibility.
If Biden receives his $33 billion, the total amount of military assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian operation will amount to $ 47 billion. As William Hartung and Ben Freeman note in the online magazine Responsible Statecraft, this is almost as much as the entire budget of the State Department, and more than the Biden administration promised to allocate to combat climate change.
That is why it is extremely important to cool the emotions inflamed by the conflict and assess our real priorities in the field of security. We have much more serious problems in this area, including the pandemic, infectious diseases, climate change, challenges from China, as well as the urgent need to rebuild our economy and restore democracy. The resistance of Ukraine has absorbed our attention and aroused sympathy on our part. But the importance of this resistance is better compared with the significance of the above issues.
If Russia captures the entire Donbass, <...> Moscow will show greater willingness to negotiate a settlement. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, the United States and NATO will have to decide whether to facilitate such negotiations. In the first week of the conflict, Zelensky proposed some elements of a compromise solution, but in connection with the continuation of hostilities, he toughened his position. Washington will need to respect its own interests, which consist in ending this crisis, instead of supporting resistance at any cost.
Any settlement option will undoubtedly require the withdrawal of Russian troops, possibly in exchange for the neutrality and territorial integrity of Ukraine, recognition of Russia's authority over Crimea, as well as granting some kind of federal status to separatist provinces in eastern Ukraine. And sanctions will inevitably have to be lifted.
Recognizing the geopolitical realities of the future security architecture, the United States and its allies must clearly and clearly state to Zelensky, Russia, China and India that we are in favor of a settlement that ensures the preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty and leads to an early end to the conflict. This is our true security interests.
Readers' comments
Curmudgeon88
A lonely voice of reason from the left flank. All other liberals, including those I know personally, are the biggest supporters of the conflict. But she is right, and she was right eight years ago, when Ukraine was a fragile and deeply divided, but stable democracy, as well as a stabilizing buffer between East and West. At that time, she called for compromises between Russia and the West, between the aspirations of Kiev looking to the West and industrial Donbass, which has long and deep trade ties with Russia. The US, EU and NATO did not want to hear anything. Then, as now, they saw Ukraine as an antagonistic game, and recognized it only as the last and complete trophy of the Cold War, regardless of the costs to themselves, Ukraine and the whole world. When the last elected government of the unified state of Ukraine was overthrown in 2014, they gave way to what became a complete disaster for everyone — well, with the exception of the military-industrial complex companies Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin and China. These ones have already received a huge benefit. Ukraine will almost certainly be dismembered, and the only question is where the final border will be and how much more blood will be shed before that happens.
Lafayette89
"Recognizing the geopolitical realities of the future security architecture, the United States and its allies must clearly and clearly state to Zelensky, Russia, China and India that we are in favor of a settlement that ensures the preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty and leads to an early end to the conflict. This is our true security interests."
Is that her peace offer? And how will we achieve this? <...> No Munich. If you want, Ukraine is the new Pearl Harbor.
