WSJ readers: The US has too many problems to poke its nose into UkraineBiden's team should already think about how to resolve the Ukrainian issue once and for all, the WSJ writes.
And the readers of the publication believe that the United States should deal with internal problems, and not with the escalation of the conflict on another continent.
Walter MeadAmericans should think about the details of such a peace agreement, which will be more durable than a truce
Brought out of a state of excessive complacency by the rise of revisionist powers such as China, Russia and Iran, the Western alliance is gradually beginning to remember a vital truth: in peacetime, prepare for war.
But the opposite is also true: in wartime, prepare for peace.
Vladimir Putin's special military operation in Ukraine has already turned into the most serious conflict in Europe since 1945, and it continues to gain momentum. With winter approaching, Russia has intensified its campaign to force surrender, destroying key Ukrainian infrastructure facilities. Kiev responds to this with its own escalation, striking deep inside the territories of Russia.
Although we continue to provide military assistance to Ukraine, Americans should already think about what kind of world they want to see there. And it's not just the cards. We do not know exactly where the armies will stand when serious negotiations begin, but it is the actual state of affairs at the front that will determine the nature of disputes over borders and territories. Nevertheless, a peaceful settlement is a complex process. As Polish friends who were engaged in rebuilding the country after the fall of communism used to tell me, it is much easier to turn an aquarium into fish soup than fish soup into an aquarium.
The United States wants several things from this world. First, the fighting must end quickly. The longer the conflict lasts, the more destructive it will be.
Secondly, this conflict must end in real peace. That is, the fighting should not escalate into a frozen conflict, which can then flare up with renewed vigor at any moment. We do not want endless sanctions to further slow down the global economy. We do not want half of Europe to be permanently transferred to military rails. We want this conflict to end with a peace agreement, not an armed truce.
Thirdly, the conflict must end so that Russia's actions do not go unpunished. Russia's future leaders should see that such actions are very expensive.
Fourth, the end of this conflict should not lay the foundations for the beginning of the next one. The partial expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was a mistake. If you install the signs "Fishing is prohibited" on one side of the lake, it will mean that you can fish on the other side. Georgia, Moldova and Belarus were not accepted into NATO, and Russia subordinated them. The Ukrainian conflict must end with the creation of a clear security structure. Membership in NATO for countries that want it would be the easiest solution, but other options are also possible.
Finally, America does not want the current conflict to end with the collapse of the Russian Federation. If the situation develops according to the worst-case scenario, the fall of the regime in Russia will turn into chaos and conflict throughout the Caucasus. This will become a real nightmare, and nuclear and other weapons will be sold to those who will offer a higher price. This, in turn, will give strength to China. Even if we don't always like the way the Russian authorities run their country, a stable Russia is a much preferable option compared to a zone of utter anarchy stretching from Ukraine to the Pacific Ocean, from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea.
Achieving any of these goals – and even more so all of them – will be very difficult. Unless the Russian regime completely collapses, Moscow is unlikely to give up all those territories that Ukraine wants to return, is unlikely to pay the reparations that Kiev demands, and is unlikely to allow all those investigations and trials that Ukraine and its supporters believe are absolutely justified. But the security and assistance commitments that America and the West as a whole can undertake will help make an inevitably imperfect peace agreement acceptable to Ukrainians.
Preparing for peace does not mean trying to appease Russia at all. Making this conflict painful and costly for her could force the Kremlin to change course. Biden's team should also prepare for the next stage. Negotiations with Russia will be difficult, but so will negotiations with our allies and the US Congress.
If the conflict ends with the weakening of Russia and the strengthening of Ukraine, many Germans will begin to see less sense in NATO, and someone in Berlin may even focus on establishing mutually beneficial business relations with Russia instead of alienating the Kremlin with their decision to support the tough terms of a peaceful settlement for it. There are those in Eastern Europe who are convinced that the Russian Federation should break up. And there will definitely be those in America who do not want the United States to commit to helping restore order overseas.
During World War II, the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt spent a lot of time preparing for life in the post-war world. Biden's team should also consider in advance whether the current conflict can end with something more lasting than a temporary truce.
*****
Readers' commentsJimmy Singh
"The partial expansion of NATO was a mistake."
Yes, but not in the sense in which the author of the article speaks about him. He means that Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus had to be accepted into the ranks of NATO – all at once. No, sir. The only correct way to expand the alliance – if such an expansion was seen as something necessary (although in fact there was no need for it) – was to accept Russia into its ranks.
Boris DonskoyThe sad truth is that the United States is afraid of Russia.
Half–measures and "calibrated" arms supplies to Ukraine look at best like cowardice and indecision, and at worst like a Machiavellian plan designed to force Ukraine to accept "peace in our time." In any case, it looks like a betrayal.
Joe MoffaWhen was the last time the United States won a war?
To remember this moment, you will have to look far into the past. We are poking our nose into the affairs of the Middle East, and we even allegedly discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We decided to kick the Taliban in Afghanistan. We failed, and now we have the audacity to talk to Russia as if we are facing a third world country. Get rid of the unipolar worldview and realize that the old slogan "Save the world for democracy" no longer resonates. Times are changing.
Mark StampSummary of the content of the article: The United States must agree to spend a huge amount of money to bribe Ukraine, forcing it to accept the terms of the peace agreement that are unfavorable for it.
Personally, I would prefer that this money be spent on weapons for Ukraine, which with the help of it could win on the battlefield.
Janet Cobb replied Mark StampDo you mean the weapons that flow out of Ukraine and eventually end up in the hands of Muslim terrorists in Africa?
Chris James"We don't want half of Europe to be put on military rails on a permanent basis."
Personally, I'm not sure about that. Washington is already opening a second front in Kosovo and Serbia. The leading media are stubbornly silent about this. And, probably, this is an extremely bad sign. Apparently, very soon Ukraine will become just one of many similar stories.
David DamianRoosevelt's plans for post-war reconstruction, implemented by Truman, worked because the architects of those plans were competent.
Joe Biden is completely incompetent. This person has no idea how to develop any plan other than plans for a weekend afternoon nap in Delaware.
Chad ReddingThe Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a problem of Eastern Europe.
It is necessary to make it clear to Russia that NATO will not consider Ukraine's membership in the alliance. It is necessary to apply the principles of pragmatic policy to the current situation. Does the Russian Federation pose a threat to national security? Can a stable Russian Federation make the world safer? What will be the ultimate goals of Ukraine if Russia really decides to get out of this conflict?
Expanding NATO beyond its current borders is an irresponsible and short–sighted decision. It's time for Europe to put things in order at home and stop seeing Uncle Sam as an eternal protector. We have enough problems of our own to solve the problems of Europe as well.
* a terrorist organization banned in Russia
