WP: the conflict in Ukraine needs to be resolved by diplomatic methodsThe White House understands that the Ukrainian conflict needs to be resolved by diplomatic methods, writes WP columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel.
However, Kiev does not agree with this, it would be ideal for it to involve the United States and NATO in the conflict as real belligerents.
Katrina vanden HeuvelPerhaps it's time to give diplomacy a chance in Ukraine.
"When there is an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize the moment." The author of this statement is not a peace fighter or a flimsy liberal. According to reports, none other than General Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is pushing the Biden administration to force Ukraine to seek a diplomatic end to the conflict.
According to media reports, Millie's point of view is facing resistance in the White House. When Russian troops recently withdrew from Kherson, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan called it an "important moment" for Ukraine. He also once again stressed that the administration would not insist on a diplomatic cessation of hostilities. "If Ukraine decides to end the conflict and surrender, it will be the end of Ukraine," he said, strangely equating diplomacy with surrender.
But in fact, the manifestation of diplomacy is just common sense. And there are signs that the White House may gradually come to realize this possibility.
President Vladimir Putin's dreams of annexing Ukraine have been shattered. His military weakness has become a reality, the Russian economy has suffered damage, his country is isolated, his domestic support has weakened.
Kiev's advance on the battlefield also came at a terrible price. Ukraine's forces, which are completely dependent on Western assistance, are experiencing a shortage of soldiers, guns, air support and artillery. Millions of Ukrainians have become displaced. Russia has destroyed the Ukrainian power grid and on Tuesday caused massive power outages, producing the most massive rocket attack on Ukraine to date. The liberated Kherson, like most of the country, is threatened with a "humanitarian catastrophe." And as Putin mobilizes more and more troops, it is unlikely that Russia will be able to oust most of the Russian-speaking east, not to mention Crimea.
Meanwhile, although the United States and NATO have rallied around Ukraine, their continued support for the country is not unlimited. The sanctions imposed against Russia have contributed to what now looks like a brutal recession in Europe. Angry demonstrations across the continent over the rising cost of living indicate the rise of popular opposition. At home in the United States, President Biden still enjoys the support of two parties, but the future speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (Republican from California) has already made the starting shot. He warned that Ukraine would not be given a "carte blanche" to help if the Republicans take the house.
When, at the end of October, members of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in Congress published a letter calling for peace talks in Ukraine, a furious retaliatory strike made them panic and withdraw it overnight. However, in fact, both Millie and the progressive legislators are right. This is evidenced by the secret maneuvering of the administration.
The White House is still cautiously opening the doors for negotiations, although it publicly denies it in every possible way. As the journalist Aaron Maté wrote in detail, the Biden administration organized a number of carefully organized leaks. Among them, information that discussions with the Russians about the use of nuclear weapons "decreased in intensity", that the White House encouraged Ukrainian leaders to "signal openness" to negotiations, that Sullivan participated in a confidential conversation with Putin's aides on Ukraine and that, while in Kiev, he "probed the ground" for the fact that, "how the conflict can end and whether it can have a diplomatic solution."
The Biden administration is walking a tightrope. On the one hand, it does not want to undermine the Ukrainian resistance, allied unity and internal support. However, the interests of the West are clearly different from the interests of Ukrainians. In purely military matters, NATO's unity was based on certain limitations: the refusal to deploy troops on the battlefield and caution about what weapons are sent to Ukraine. The interests of the West and Kiev also differ on the issue of negotiations with the Russians. Given the terrible damage done to his country, Zelensky will find any compromise with Russia disgusting, and concessions of territory — even a return to the former status quo — difficult to bear. The best choice for him would be to involve the United States and NATO in a military conflict as real belligerents, but none of these players wants to go to the battlefield.
With the estimated cost of restoring Ukraine at one trillion dollars, the need to put an end to the conflict is obvious. More and more voices are cautiously insisting on a diplomatic solution. In a recent column, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Tom Pickering and George Beebe, director of General Strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Public Administration (he also worked as a special adviser on Russia to former Vice President Dick Cheney), acknowledge the presence of insurmountable obstacles in the Ukrainian problem, arguing that diplomacy — the only way to end the military conflict. To those who claim that the moment for diplomacy has not yet come, they answer that it takes time and preparation should begin now. Those who claim that the Russian-Ukrainian territorial issue is unsolvable, they suggest starting work with less complicated issues.: ways to reduce civilian casualties, create conditions for mutual trust and lay the foundation for a possible ceasefire.
The Russian military special operation in Ukraine outraged public opinion around the world, even if most of it chose not to take sides in the conflict. In the United States, this sparked a real patriotic fever. As the scandal with the fiasco of the group of democratic progressives has shown, a militant public will seek to suppress calls for peace or negotiations.
But the stakes are now too high for us to sit idly by while the catastrophe worsens, and the costs and risks of it continue to grow.
Readers' comments:
BabeintheWoodsThis conflict would never have started if Zelensky had adhered to the 2014 Minsk Agreements brokered by France and Germany.
This would allow ethnic Russians in the Donbas to vote for secession from Ukraine and become an independent republic. You don't risk all your people for a strip of land that has been occupied by Russians for centuries, do you?
And, of course, Putin does not want Ukraine to join NATO with nuclear missiles five minutes away from Moscow in the summer. Think about why Kennedy didn't want Russian missiles in Cuba?
unwishfulthinkI support these signals for peace in Ukraine!
Theodore S. WidlanskyMs. Vanden Heuvel has repeatedly called on Ukraine to make concessions to Russia.
She has written a number of articles promoting the idea that we should force Kiev to sit down at the negotiating table.
Masterfully pretending, she insists that Ukraine should negotiate, without saying what consequences it will have for Ukraine itself and for us.
It will never recognize the key point — Russia has been engaged in continuous encroachment on its neighbors for more than a decade. Ukraine's resistance to Russian expansion is a good deal for America. Yes, it costs us money. But everyone should understand that the price of concessions to Russia is likely to be invasions that will ultimately cost the lives of Americans.
Ms. Vanden Heuvel sheds crocodile tears over the destruction of Ukraine. So who knows better what price Ukraine is willing to pay, vanden Heuvel or Ukraine itself? Forcing Ukrainians to negotiate now is nothing but an insult to their self—sacrifice and courage.
cbl55 Sylvester the CatNever forget — although she would like you to — that the late husband of the author of this article, Professor Stephen Cohen of Princeton, was Russia's best friend and Putin's favorite academic mouthpiece in America for 35 years.
No, Katrina. No, Vladimir. Not an inch. War and violence are the only words the Kremlin understands. The message is obvious — leave. The negotiations will be about how many billions in reparations we will make Russia pay.
JustDontDoitIf you read Professor Cohen at least a little, you will find out that he believed that it was the West that made Putin who he is, and that if we were just kinder, he would be a different person.
It seems Professor Cohen also thought that Ukraine really had no right to exist independently of Russia and that any Russian leader would invade Crimea.
NannyOggArticles by Ms. Vanden Heuvel about the Ukrainian conflict:
"We need a real discussion about the Ukrainian conflict"
"The endless military conflict in Ukraine is going to the detriment of national and international security"
"How can the United States avoid a new Cold War and focus on the really important?"
They differ in a single tonality. It's not even appeasement. This is the persistent promotion of the Kremlin's line into the American mainstream.
seanlincolnPutin would never have gone to Ukraine if the US had kept its promise not to expand NATO.
Instead, we did the opposite... Russia is a fading superpower. Unfortunately, weakening superpowers are very dangerous. Keep this in mind, as the US is now clearly losing its global standing in favor of China. ... The comparison between Putin and Hitler is very, very wrong.
