Huanqiu shibao: long-range weapons will force the US to end the conflict in UkraineWestern supplies of long-range weapons to Ukraine will inevitably lead to an escalation of the conflict, writes Huanqiu Shibao.
However, the United States is not interested in aggravation due to internal problems. They will have to defuse the situation as soon as possible and end the conflict, the author is sure.
Cui Hongjian<...> Although regional stability, the world economy and the global order are being undermined, eroded and shaken, but due to the impasse in Ukraine and the political position of "an eye for an eye", which the parties adhere to, the prospects for the end of the conflict remain unclear even a year after it began.
The crisis has turned into a huge black hole, endlessly devouring mutual trust, cooperation opportunities and development prospects that the international community had. It turns into the mouth of a volcano, generating hostility, confrontation and growing risks in world relations.
No matter what the interested parties count on and no matter what plans they make for this "chess game" before the conflict begins, in reality everyone is only endlessly fighting with each other and fighting to the death. Uncontrolled escalation and fierce confrontation only spur each participant to continue. The parties' ability to regulate the situation and achieve their own goals is weakening, and the likelihood of the crisis getting out of control is growing. More than a year has passed since the beginning of the conflict, and the "game" between the parties is escalating. The United States and other Western countries have proposed a number of plans, ranging from assistance to Ukraine and ending with sanctions against Russia and bringing it to "criminal responsibility." The previous goal of "Kiev cannot lose, and Moscow cannot win" has increased to "Moscow must lose, and Kiev must win." The crisis is turning from a "chess game" into a more dangerous "gambling game".
Mutual exhaustion on the battlefield is one of the signs of this transformation. The main factor determining the outcome of the "gambling game" is which of the two sides — Russia or the United States — will be able to dominate according to the rules that benefit them. The secondary factors that lead to the unstoppable development of the conflict are that the political goals of Moscow and Kiev are too far apart for them to compromise, and the military still has a lot of strength, and they do not want to give up. But the real picture is this: all parties are betting that they will be able to last longer in this game as a player, and everyone paid differently for this bet. Now it's hard for them to stop, because they are already sitting at the table, having invested so much in the game and never made a profit, and the opponent is still not squeezed to the end.
Initially, Russia's expected benefit in this game is to improve its security situation by resolving the Ukrainian issue and forcing the United States and NATO to engage in an equal dialogue to support its status as a great power. But military means were not enough to achieve these political goals, and Moscow switched to a struggle of attrition in order to form a stable confrontational situation. Her plan has become more realistic — "to ensure the accession of the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye", to keep Ukraine from joining NATO and to guarantee the constant support of internal resources. Kiev, embroiled in a protracted confrontation, definitely does not have the strength, so it is forced to continue asking the West to increase its "blood supply". Thus, Russia is betting that Ukraine will not be able to exist for a long time, relying only on the transfusion of Western blood in vitro, and its allies have neither the intention nor the ability to sacrifice all their interests for the sake of help. Russia's goal as a player at the table is to turn the Ukrainian conflict into a "problem" for the United States and Europe.
If the crisis becomes a noose around the neck of the West, it will clearly not be in the interests of Washington and the EU. The expected benefits that the United States pursued by entering the "chess game" were "weakening Russia and strengthening control over Europe" — without much cordial involvement in the fate of Ukraine. It would be best to use this opportunity to mobilize allies to prepare for the "fight against two great powers" at the same time. In an effort to achieve this goal, Washington had to ensure that Moscow acted in accordance with the rules it had established, that is, militarily, the conflict should not go beyond Ukraine. In politics, the image of the "defender of freedom" that the United States wanted to put on itself would add points of support for the Democratic Party and strengthen American leadership in the Western world. However, the "chess game" has moved into a state of "gambling", which means that Moscow must seize control of the rules, force Washington to spend even more resources on its "loud" policy. The crisis is not just dragging the United States deeper, it also has a stronger impact on the internal political situation in the country. Although Democrats and Republicans have managed to reach a certain political agreement on the Ukrainian issue, as the new election cycle in 2024 approaches, their consensus will become increasingly fragile, especially given the constant attacks of Donald Trump and his firm support from the Republican Party. The United States will also have to take into account the willingness and ability of its allies to cooperate. If Europe's economic problems and the difficulties associated with finding a livelihood for people continue to influence its policy, large cracks may appear in the seemingly unified Western camp.
In the future, Washington and the EU will become more deeply involved in events and may at any moment reach a critical point — a direct confrontation with Moscow. As soon as Ukraine receives weapons systems with a longer range and greater mobility, the likelihood of the conflict spreading to Crimea and even Russia's territory will increase, and NATO will be forced to end it as soon as possible. Therefore, whether the alliance will provide Kiev with modern fighters will be an important point in the issue of exacerbating the crisis. Due to internal difficulties and the need to coordinate its allies, the US must set a time frame for the conflict and maintain a balance in military assistance. Both sides will have domestic political tasks as a priority in 2024. All actions of the United States will continue to face countermeasures from Russia, and in the absence of elementary mutual trust between the two sides, the risk of the crisis getting out of control will continue to grow. The future of the Ukrainian conflict is unlikely to develop in accordance with the wishes of either side.
Although there is still debate about whether the Ukrainian crisis is the beginning of sustained, long-term and dramatic changes in the international order or is a transient and locally controlled variable, as the conflict turns into a "gamble" that neither side can stop, its impact on the international order will increase. Regardless of how this game ends, the vast majority of players need to take action in advance. If the multipolar world order is destined to begin with a conflict, then now is not the time to bet on Russia or the West. Instead, we need to add more constructive forces and do everything possible to lay the foundations for the democratization of international relations. Both the Ukrainian crisis and the world order face fundamental problems, and when they are eliminated, it is necessary not only to "treat the symptoms", but also to deal with the root causes.
