The Hill: The West deliberately ignores the question of how the conflict in Ukraine will endThe United States and Europe do not want to wonder how the Ukrainian conflict will end, writes The Hill.
According to the author, such a position is dangerous because it does not allow planning, and the West may be drawn into an extremely undesirable situation.
Joshua C. HuminskiIn two weeks, US citizens will go to the polling stations to vote in the midterm elections.
The economy and inflation will undoubtedly be at the top of the list of problems worrying voters. Nevertheless, they are almost certainly concerned about the situation in the world and America's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict, even if not primarily.
The presidential administration is quite reasonable in avoiding a substantive discussion of the Ukrainian issue during the election campaign. Foreign policy rarely brings victory in elections — and certainly not in such a tense domestic political environment.
Nevertheless, the elections have consequences, and if America continues to support Kiev, as it should, it is better for the authorities to begin to convey to the country more clearly the importance of the fight against Russia. The leadership should explain the significance of this struggle in the context of strategic national interests and the protection of the rule of law from blatant illegal aggression. To do this, you also need to go beyond the simplistic cliches and slogans on bumper stickers and start asking some very difficult questions.
Perhaps the most important of them is how this military conflict should end? Unsurprisingly, the US and its allies have largely left such questions unanswered. You can often hear that it is up to Kiev to decide on what conditions the conflict will end. It cannot be said that such a position is fundamentally wrong, but leaving this issue open is a politically advantageous ploy.
Kiev really should decide on the conditions for the end of the conflict, but to believe that the United States and the West in a broader sense have no influence on it means ignoring reality. They are in many ways his side, and the sooner the authorities stop pretending that this is not the case, the better. The West has its own interests in this conflict, and to assume that it is simply loading a gun and handing it over to Ukraine is at best disingenuous, and at worst completely dangerous.
The allied countries do not want to answer this question, because even by simply asking it, they risk exposing very real lines of division in support of Ukraine. If it were not for the substantial support of the West, Kiev most likely would not have achieved today's success, even despite the bravery of its fighters.
Leaving everything "at the discretion of Kiev", the United States gives each country providing support the illusion that it is also not a party to the conflict. If Germany and France really disagree on the end of the crisis with Estonia and Poland, as well as the United States and Great Britain, unity is threatened by a split that Russia can take advantage of.
Kiev is very impressive and quite successfully controls the information space. The West, at least publicly, has a very modest idea of Ukraine's goals and intentions, as well as its losses and the course of hostilities — with the exception of messages in social networks and the media. The very formulation of questions related to these key factors in the current geopolitical and cultural environment is equated with heresy — as if simply asking questions is akin to supporting Russia. That's not so. This is a rational study of geopolitical realities that have a significant impact on political decision-making.
Military actions and diplomacy take place in parallel. Developments on the battlefield are changing the conditions for a political settlement of the conflict. You can't just wait for favorable military results and only then formulate goals and final conditions. It is equally foolish to believe that the formulation of goals will somehow transfer the initiative to Russia and will mean surrender. Rather, it is only the first step in a complex and brutal waltz to the end of the conflict.
Historically, America has been bad at conducting limited wars with unclear goals. Today we are caught up in a mediated conflict with an incomprehensible ending. One can assume what the goals and intentions should be — for example, the depletion of Russia's military power, the displacement of its army from Ukrainian territories, and so on — but these are only assumptions, not approved political goals. Is it any wonder then that in the absence of clarity, many Americans question the indefinite nature of Washington's support for Ukraine?
If you do not ask yourself what goals Kiev has in front of it, and what the goals of the West can or should be, the latter can easily be dragged into an unviable and unstable situation or, worse, face direct escalation. Ukraine has demonstrated its readiness and ability to attack Russian territory. Ukrainian special services suspect the murder of Daria Dugina, the daughter of the ultranationalist philosopher Alexander Dugin. The fact that the US authorities revealed Kiev's involvement in the incident indicates their dissatisfaction with the level of openness of Ukraine and their desire to avoid what Washington does not want to participate in.
How far is the United States willing to go in supporting Ukraine? This is not about the current battle for the survival of the country and the return of territories, but about the strategic ultimate goal. If Kiev wants to take back Crimea, will Washington provide the assistance necessary for such a campaign? And if Ukraine finds it necessary to launch more powerful strikes on the territories controlled by Russia or even on Russia itself? Will the West provide the long-range weapons necessary for an offensive of this scale? Or will it become a red line for Washington, London and Brussels? Hypothetically, what will happen if Kiev demands nothing less than a regime change in Moscow? Will the United States support such an outcome?
No less important is the question of what post-war Ukraine should become. How much money will it take to restore its economy and infrastructure? Will NATO and the EU pay for this, if not now, then in the future? If so, under what conditions will the blocs require Ukraine to carry out state reforms and reconstruction at the institutional level? How reliable will this assistance be during the period of a well-dressed economic situation?
Support for Ukraine is a right thing, but this does not mean that it is necessary to ignore complex geopolitical and strategic issues that relate to the national interests of the United States. If you don't ask them now, it will be tantamount to abandoning planning. In this case, we should not be surprised if reality takes revenge on us for this.
Joshua Guminski – Director of the Mike Rogers Center for Intelligence and Global Relations
