The military conflict in Ukraine is becoming more complicated, and America is not ready for this
The Ukrainian crisis is a test of Biden and the United States for strength, writes NYT. The White House will have to explain to Americans, who are increasingly concerned about their own well-being, why they need to support Ukraine. At the same time, the aggravation of the conflict with Russia should not be in the interests of the United States, the author notes.
On Thursday, the Senate approved a $40 billion emergency aid package for Ukraine, but a small group of isolationists from the Republican Party sharply criticized these costs. And since the conflict is entering a new and rather difficult stage, no one can guarantee the preservation of bipartisan support in Congress.
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines recently warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that the next few months will be very turbulent. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia may take a "more unpredictable trajectory leading to escalation," she said. <…>
These are enormous costs and serious dangers, but President Biden will have to answer many questions from Americans about the involvement of the United States in this conflict.
In March, our editorial board argued that the United States and its allies should send the following signal to Ukrainians and Russians: no matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. Ukraine has earned support <...>, and the United States, led by its NATO allies, must show Vladimir Putin that the North Atlantic Alliance is ready and able to resist his revanchist aspirations.
This is an unchangeable goal, but ultimately it is not in America's interests to get involved in a full-scale conflict with Russia, even if Ukraine will have to make difficult decisions to achieve peace through negotiations.But it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand the goals and strategy of the United States in this conflict, as the parameters of the tasks seem to have changed.
For example, is the United States trying to put an end to this crisis through a settlement that will preserve Ukraine's sovereignty and some semblance of relations between the United States and Russia? Or is Washington today seeking to finally and irrevocably weaken Moscow? Have the administration's goals changed, does it now want to destabilize Putin's regime and remove him from power? Do the United States intend to bring Putin to justice as a war criminal? Or is the goal to prevent a larger conflict? And if so, how will boastful statements about the provision of intelligence by America for the destruction of Russians and the sinking of one of their ships help to achieve it?
If there is no clarity on these issues, Americans may lose interest in supporting Ukrainians, and they will continue to suffer losses and lose their livelihoods. Moreover, the White House will endanger peace and security on the European continent.
Americans were prompted to act by the suffering of Ukrainians, but popular support for the conflict, going far from the shores of the United States, cannot last forever. Inflation has become a much more important issue for American voters than Ukraine, and disruptions in global food and energy markets are sure to intensify.
The current moment of the conflict is very messy, and this explains the reluctance of President Biden and his cabinet to set clear goals. But in such an environment, he should all the more explain to American voters long before November that support for Ukraine means support for democratic values <...>. And peace and security remain the ideal solution to this crisis.
It is tempting to see in the amazing successes of Ukraine <...> a sign that, having received enough help from America and Europe, this country is close to expelling Russia to the positions it occupied before the start of its operation. But this is a dangerous assumption.
A decisive military victory of Ukraine over Russia, as a result of which Kiev will return all the territories that Moscow has occupied since 2014, is an unrealistic goal. <...>
The United States and NATO are very much involved in this conflict, both militarily and economically. Unrealistic expectations can drag them even deeper into this costly and protracted crisis. Russia <...> is still capable of causing enormous damage to Ukraine. <...>. The positions of Ukraine and Russia today are far from each other "as never before during this three-month conflict," The Times reported.
Recently, bellicose statements have been increasingly heard from Washington. President Biden claims that Putin "cannot remain in power," Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin talks about the need to "weaken" Russia, and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi promises that the United States will support Ukraine "until complete victory." All this may seem like an inspiring demonstration of support, but such statements do not bring the negotiation process any closer.
As a result, Ukrainians will have to make difficult decisions. After all, it is they who are fighting, dying and losing their homes <...>, and it is they who must decide what the end of this conflict can be. If it leads to real negotiations, it will be the Ukrainian leadership that will have to make the painful territorial decisions necessary to reach compromises.
The United States and NATO have shown that they will actively help Ukraine in its struggle with military equipment and other means. And no matter how the fighting ends, the United States and its allies should be ready to assist Ukraine in rebuilding.
But the conflict continues, and Biden should clearly indicate to President Vladimir Zelensky and his people that there are certain limits beyond which the United States and NATO will not go in confrontation with Russia. That there are limits in the supply of weapons, in the provision of funds and in the provision of political support. It is very important that the decisions of the Ukrainian government be based on a realistic assessment of the available funds and what additional destruction and losses Ukraine can endure.
The realization of such a reality may be painful, but it is not appeasement. This is exactly what responsible states should do, and not chase an illusory "victory". <...>. Now the task is to get rid of euphoria, stop hurtful reproaches and provocations, and focus on defining and completing tasks. American support for Ukraine is for the United States a test of their place in the world in the XXI century. And Biden has the opportunity and even the obligation to determine what kind of place it will be.
Editorial article
Readers' comments
Tácito Rolim, Brazil
... a discontented and unbalanced despot who does not show much inclination for a negotiated settlement. How is it that Putin did not try to negotiate? Russia has been keeping troops at the border for several months in order to achieve a political goal: Ukraine's refusal to join NATO. Russia, like any other country, has the right to self-defense. NATO's expansion is going on openly, and it's amazing that you just forget about it. There is no historical depth in this analysis, and it is intended solely to defend the interests of the West. And these are the interests of the United States and, ultimately, the interests of the military-industrial complex.
Jackson, New York
The dangerous prolongation of the conflict with a nuclear power and the expansion of the range of tasks? Provocative statements aimed at Russia – a country that sees in its dangerous actions an indirect war with the United States, and not only with Ukraine? The need for a negotiated settlement against a possible escalation due to the lack of chances for the parties to retreat and search for compromises? Supporting Ukraine ONLY by providing military assistance?
There is nothing new in these "concerns", and the conflict, meanwhile, is entering a more unpredictable and dangerous stage. Biden spoke about regime change not recently, but more than two months ago, and this was one of many bellicose statements from the United States.
So this is a belated article that cautiously outlines the concerns that alarm foreign policy experts and opponents of the conflict. And they have been talking about it SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING of this monstrous and dangerous conflict.
Afraid of being called a "supporter of Russia," the American press itself begins to call for him, playing the role of the ringleader.
This article is a cautious "test of possibility", an attempt to test an unpopular but necessary point of view.
Should Ukrainians make their own decisions? It remains to be hoped that in future editorials, the authors will focus on the statements of Blinken and Johnson, which show that the United States and NATO are actually AGAINST negotiations and settlement, hoping that they will be able to "bleed Russia".
Siddharth
Arrogant statements about the defeat and destruction of Russia without full involvement are criminal. They only prolong the agony of the Ukrainian army and the population. Without modern weapons, planes and missiles, Ukraine will lose more and more personnel and infrastructure. <...>
Therefore, the most reasonable solution is to negotiate peace, even if it may seem unacceptable now. From neutral positions, the US and NATO do not look innocent at all, as they like to present themselves, especially after their unsuccessful invasions of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. The US must now become a true leader by establishing contacts with the Russians to resolve this crisis, and not driving them into a corner. There is a proverb in India that says that a cornered cat, finding itself in a desperate situation, can attack.
The world must come together and begin to fight the challenges that we will face in the coming years. And splitting the world into separate groupings will only make it more difficult to find solutions.
Citizen
From the safe distance America is located, it is difficult to understand that the price of bread is important to an ordinary Ukrainian, and he does not care whether his country is led by a Ukrainian or Russian oligarch. Maybe under the rule of a Russian oligarch he will be even better, because Russia has more resources and state capabilities. But America is waging an indirect war, which means that men, women and children are dying every day, cities and infrastructure are being destroyed. If we had not supported the Ukrainian oligarch, had not intervened in the transition of power, and this tragedy would not have happened. When the Russian oligarch made his move, we had to give the Ukrainian oligarch the opportunity to quietly leave for the West, and the issue would be resolved.
