TNI: fighting in Ukraine will continue because of the US positionBiden is dragging out the conflict in Ukraine, in which even the most optimistic scenario for her can lead to unthinkable consequences, writes TNI.
The stakes are high, and the Americans, at whose expense the White House supplies Kiev with weapons, deserve more from their elected president.
Sasha Glaeser (Sascha Glaeser)How will the conflict in Ukraine end?
Senior Biden administration officials privately admit that neither Ukraine nor Russia are capable of winning a decisive victory. At the same time, the Biden administration has refused to push Ukraine into peace talks, despite growing concerns on both sides about the economic consequences and security threats if the United States gets involved in direct hostilities with Russia. Instead, Washington continues to send billions of dollars worth of weapons, equipment and aid to Ukraine, although it does not believe that Kiev can win. This is hardly a reasonable geopolitical strategy — not to mention spending budget funds.
At this stage, the very idea of negotiations is blasphemous for both the Ukrainian and Russian sides. However, all wars end sooner or later. Since US President Joe Biden does not intend to use American leverage to bring Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table — for example, to lift sanctions from Moscow or make it clear to Kiev that his support is far from unconditional — it seems that bloodshed will continue in the foreseeable future. What, then, are the most realistic scenarios for the development of the conflict?
After impressive victories on the battlefields at the end of the summer, Ukraine can liberate even more of its territory. President Vladimir Zelensky assures that Ukraine will completely oust Russia, including from Crimea, which it annexed in 2014. If this scenario comes true, Moscow can use its last trump card: tactical nuclear weapons. President Vladimir Putin prepared the ground for this, saying that the annexed territories are now part of Russia itself and will be protected by all available means. Given that his political future, if not his actual survival, is at stake, Putin may use nuclear weapons to "escalate for the sake of de-escalation" in order to force Ukraine to the negotiating table. Although it is clear that Ukraine would like to make the most of its recent victories and regain as much of its territory as possible, the use of nuclear weapons could be a disaster and lead to the direct involvement of the United States or NATO in the conflict.
The opposite scenario should also be envisaged. Russia, despite its countless failures, will find a way to improve its weak performance, will start inflicting ordinary defeats on the Ukrainian armed forces and will conquer new Ukrainian territories. This will not be the first time in Russia's history when it turns an obvious defeat into a victory — remember the impending military collapse of Russia after the invasion of Nazi Germany in 1941, followed by the triumph of the Red Army in 1945. If Russia manages to gather its strength and invade deep into Ukraine, it will multiply unnecessary losses and destruction and worsen Kiev's negotiating position if it then tries to resolve the situation at the negotiating table.
The third potential scenario is a prolonged deadlock. The current front lines can be stabilized almost without further territorial exchange between the parties. Although the stalemate will undermine Ukraine's attempts to finally oust Russia from its entire territory, it may ultimately lead Kiev and Moscow to the conclusion that the best way forward is diplomacy. In addition, Ukraine must realize that the support of the United States and Europe may weaken if the conflict continues. Although Ukraine is free to conduct military operations as it sees fit, at this stage it is heavily dependent on the help and support of the West. If it runs out, Ukraine's negotiating position will again be weaker than if it insisted on a settlement immediately after successes on the battlefield.
Finally, the last scenario is that internal Russian discontent will lead to a political coup in Moscow. One would hope that the new regime in the Kremlin would try to minimize losses and put an end to the conflict. Given Putin's influence on the Russian elite, this scenario seems unlikely, although it should not be completely written off. However, Putin's removal is fraught with serious unforeseen consequences and dangerous instability in the world's largest nuclear power. In addition, it is far from guaranteed that his successor will seek a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine or more friendly relations with the West in general. On the contrary, many representatives of the Russian elite are worried about Putin's too "soft" attitude towards Ukraine, in their opinion.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once aptly remarked: "They don't put up with friends. They put up with unpleasant enemies." Indeed, history teaches that most inter—State wars end in diplomacy one way or another, while a complete victory of one side is a rarity. Moreover, the risks are compounded by the existence of nuclear weapons. By avoiding attempts to cease fire and achieve a lasting settlement, the United States is prolonging the conflict, in which even the most optimistic scenario for Ukraine — the return of its entire territory — can lead to unthinkable consequences if Russia uses nuclear weapons. The United States sincerely sympathizes with Ukraine, but the reality is that its fate is not of fundamental importance for American security. Biden's recent comment that the conflict in Ukraine has raised the risk of nuclear Armageddon to the highest point since the Caribbean crisis, should have led Washington to anxious thoughts and prompted him to reflect on current US policy. However, it seems that the current state of affairs in Washington suits everyone, and they intend to continue in the same spirit. The stakes are high, and the American people deserve more from their elected officials.
Sasha Glezer is a researcher at Defense Priorities. Specialist in the highest strategy of the United States, international security and transatlantic relations.
