Biden is preparing for a long limited conflict in Ukraine
The United States will transfer missile systems to Ukraine, but it is not going to participate in hostilities, Biden stressed. Washington does not want a war between Russia and NATO and will not put pressure on Kiev to make concessions to Moscow, writes The Washington Post.
David Ignatius
"A limited war requires limitations," Thomas Schelling wrote in 1960 in his classic work "Strategy of Conflict". President Biden took some sensible steps this week to define the West's goals in the conflict in Ukraine - as well as its permissible limits.
Biden summarized his administration's approach Wednesday in an article in the pages of the New York Times. Instead of an inarticulate conversation about a complete military victory over the "Russian invaders," he said that the goal of the United States is peace achieved through negotiations. He very wisely outlined this goal in the words of an American ally: "As Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said, in the end this conflict will 'definitely end with diplomatic efforts'."
To stop the Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine, Biden is sending Kiev powerful multiple rocket launchers HIMARS, which can strike Russian targets with great efficiency and accuracy. However, the president explained that the purpose of these American weapons is not only to help Ukraine on the battlefield, but also "to provide it with the strongest positions at the negotiating table."
Biden had very specific messages for Russian President Vladimir Putin: "We are not seeking a war between NATO and Russia. Although I disagree with Mr. Putin and consider his actions outrageous, the United States will not attempt to overthrow him in Moscow. … We do not want to prolong the fighting in order to cause pain to Russia." Speaking about the HIMARS MLRS, the president clearly stated: "We do not incite Ukraine to strike outside its borders and do not contribute to it in this."
These messages were reinforced this week by statements by senior leaders from the administration. They signal a change in the tone of the Washington debate about the ongoing conflict. After the Russian failures in the first month of the conflict, a frivolous arrogance arose. Putin and his inept commanders made a mistake. The brave Ukrainian military are driving the invader back to the Russian borders. And Zelensky spoke like that (although he probably knew the true state of things), as if a complete military victory was possible.
But on Thursday, the Ukrainian president summed up the sobering outcome of the Russian offensive since the concentration of troops in the eastern region called Donbass, when they began launching rocket and artillery strikes along the 1,000-kilometer front line. "The Russian army has already destroyed almost the entire Donbass," Zelensky said in his video message to the Luxembourg parliament. "As of today, about 20% of our territory is under the control of invaders."
The Biden White House is forced to reckon with the new successes of Russia, which uses the tactics of grinding enemy manpower. For Biden, this was a test of his qualities as a military leader. He is being praised for rallying a coalition of supporters of Ukraine, who are arming this country and helping it to restrain the advance of the Russians. But now there is a turning point in the military operation, and this causes concern to the president.
The most urgent task for Biden is to calm the panicked European allies who are talking about peace at any cost, fearing the costs of a protracted conflict. This week, European leaders seemed to come to their senses, agreeing to impose an embargo on Russian tanker oil supplies. And Germany has agreed to supply Ukraine with powerful air defense systems and tanks.
The armed conflict in Ukraine with its abrupt changes in the situation is moving from a phase of excited optimism about the stubborn resistance of the Ukrainian military to another stage, which is more like a long and exhausting meat grinder of the Korean War. David Halberstam in his 2007 book "The Coldest Winter. America and the Korean War" (The Coldest Winter: America and The Korean War) called it "a puzzling, gray and very distant conflict, a war that dragged on endlessly with no visible hope of settlement."
The Korean war was depressing and irritating, because like the Ukrainian conflict, it was a limited war. The American commander, General Douglas MacArthur, wanted to correct his initial miscalculations by using nuclear weapons. President Harry Truman wisely refused him and dismissed him. The US military was very unhappy that they were forced to "die for a draw," Halberstam wrote. But it was impossible to achieve a military victory at an acceptable cost, and Republican presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower promised: "I will go to Korea." This meant that he would make peace. And Eisenhower concluded it.
The ceasefire agreement signed in July 1953 in Korea may have seemed like a defeat to many Americans and their brave South Korean allies. But today South Korea is one of the world's economic treasures. And although a peace treaty was never signed after the war, a fragile truce has been in place between South Korea and its disgusting northern neighbor for almost 70 years. Maybe it will become a model for post-war Ukraine.
Leading military historian Rick Atkinson told me that he sees analogies between the ebb and flow of the Ukrainian conflict and the war for US independence. The British aggressor was defeated in 1775, attacking Lexington and Concord, and then was defeated again at the Battle of Bunker Hill. But the war dragged on for eight long and brutal years, and the American rebels eventually prevailed thanks mainly to British fatigue and French intervention.
"In war, the one who usually wins is the one who shows a great will to win," Atkinson says. – In this case, the deadlock situation will give Ukraine time to determine at a high price whether it has enough willpower to hold out until conditions acceptable from a political point of view arise. In the meantime, we can hope that the threat from Russia will significantly decrease, as it will seriously weaken as a global player."
Biden quite rightly insists that only the Ukrainians themselves, who are fighting and dying so bravely, can decide how this conflict should end. But this week he started, as Schelling puts it, to "hidden bargaining" with Russia, outlining the contours. At some point, when the butcher's bill is paid, we will move on to open negotiations to resolve this terrible conflict.
-----------------------------------
Readers' comments:
Andrey Tovchigrechko
Ukraine has been in a stalemate since 2014. Now she needs a weapon. To promise 4 MLRS to HIMARS when she needs 100 is very similar to humiliation.
Coridoras
Sometimes it seems to me that Ukrainians do not know how much American weapons cost. And it's very expensive. Each Javelin rocket costs a hundred thousand dollars. And the complex itself is even more expensive.
I know America is a rich country compared to Ukraine, but its wealth is not infinite. We need supplies of weapons ourselves.
Desert Rat2
"Biden is preparing for a long limited war in Ukraine."
I hope he keeps his distance. Ukraine's war against the Russians is a war of the West. If Putin's bandit army captures Ukraine, there is no guarantee that he will stop at its western border. Ruthless dictators are characterized by greed.
Native Earthling
"We do not want to prolong this war in order to cause pain to Russia."
No, you do. Your Defense minister said so – publicly and loudly. Unfortunately, by delaying and inflating this conflict, the Americans are also hurting Ukrainians. But it seems to me that it is already very clear that the Pentagon is ready to fight – to the last Ukrainian. Well, you know – to teach Putin a lesson.
Stan kow50
Why supply weapons if there are restrictions on their use? Look, Russia is bombing Ukrainian cities and supply routes from a distance, and Ukraine has to put up with this, because it is forbidden to do the same with Russia. Who is Biden kidding? With this attitude, Russia will eventually gain the upper hand, and no one will teach her a lesson. Ukraine needs to destroy Russian supply routes, even if they are located abroad. She needs to warn Russia, and then start indiscriminately shelling Russian cities. Then Moscow will think, and Russian citizens will understand what Ukraine is really going through.
Russians have turned into zombies, imbeciles, Putin's lackeys. It is not necessary to tie Ukraine's hands, deprive it of the opportunity to fight. It turns out that the US and the EU are throwing money away, and Russia will attack the Baltic States, Finland and Poland next time. My God, Biden is not only old, he is also an idiot along with his advisers. There will be no Third World War, Putin is not such a fool or a madman.
TheDiplomaticOne
I can only say: I am glad that you do not develop policy in the National Security Council, the State Department and the Pentagon…
Andrey Tovchigrechko
In all the wars that Russia waged, it initially made many mistakes. But then she won. I don't want this to happen again here in Ukraine.
