TAC: due to the unwillingness to negotiate, Ukraine risks being left without the help of the United States and EuropeAll issues on Ukraine should be resolved at the negotiating table, writes Doug Bandow in an article for TAS.
The United States should take into account Moscow's security interests and show Kiev that not being ready for negotiations could deprive it of American, and possibly European, assistance.
Doug BandowAmerican politicians should take a step back and treat the Ukrainian conflict as a problem of European security, and not as a highly moral global crusade.
The United States is at war in Europe.
Thank God, Americans are not dying there (at least, the government does not recognize this). But Washington deliberately and proudly kills Russians. The Biden administration is waging a large-scale proxy war against a nuclear power.
The role of the United States in this conflict was recently covered by the New York Times. "This week, secret military documents were posted on social networks telling about the secret plans of the United States and NATO to strengthen the Ukrainian army before the start of the planned offensive against Russia," the publication reported. Washington and Brussels do not dictate to Ukraine what tactics to use on the battlefield, but their help is crucial for Kiev. Thus, the United States is fully involved in the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict.
Ukrainians have shown how important motivation and determination to defend their homeland are. They also demonstrated inventiveness and flexibility of thinking in combat. Nevertheless, appropriate means are needed to achieve success. If there had not been a tsunami of Western financial aid and arms supplies to Ukraine, the situation in the war zone would have looked very different.
The conflict continues for the second year, and there is no end in sight. Observers give gloomy assessments. <...>
The Biden administration, on the contrary, talks loudly and a lot about the Ukrainian offensive. But do not blindly believe propaganda statements. We need to look further. The intelligence leak showed that the administration's unspoken assessments are much more pessimistic: "Ukraine's problems with strengthening the grouping, with the creation of stocks of military equipment and ammunition may lead to the fact that its army will not achieve the goals stated by Kiev to conduct a long-awaited offensive this spring and return the territories occupied by Russia."
Even if the help of the allies gives Ukraine the opportunity to continue the armed struggle with larger enemy forces, it will still be difficult for Kiev to regain the lost territories, especially Crimea, and even more so to win. As a result, there may be a prolonged stalemate with periodic outbreaks of tension, which Washington should not allow.
How to push the parties to a peaceful settlement? American politicians should take a step back and treat the Ukrainian conflict as a problem of European security, and not as a highly moral global crusade.
The United States should support Ukraine's independence by providing it with important assistance and imposing sanctions against Moscow. However, America's interests in the region are limited. Ukraine, which was under Russian rule even before the emergence of the United States, has never been in the sphere of American security interests. The expansion of a proxy war increases the risk of escalation, and therefore it is extremely important for Washington to push both sides to negotiate.
To do this, Americans must clearly understand what the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict is. To begin with, Washington needs to abandon the hypocritical chatter about the struggle of democracy with autocracy. When the administration was holding its much-publicized but not particularly valuable democracy summit, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said: "This is not only an offensive against Ukraine, it is also an attack on the rules-based international order, the purpose of which is to protect peace and stability throughout the world, as well as, quoting the UN Charter, to defend the equal rights of men and women, and all countries, large and small."
Such statements certainly appeal to the liberal elite of the West, but it is negatively perceived by the global South, whose peoples have suffered from outrages and predation from America and Europe for centuries. The creators of the "rules-based order" usually exempt themselves from its requirements. In fact, Blinken, not feeling any paradoxical of his words, condemned the "aggressive and revisionist foreign policy" shortly after the 20th anniversary of Washington's illegal invasion of Iraq. Over the years, the United States has funded and supported a whole pack of odious dictators, such as Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Iranian Shahinshah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Zaire dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Indonesian Suharto and Somali Mohammed Siad Barre.
It is nonsense to claim that Ukraine is defending the West and that the defeat of Kiev will mark the beginning of a Russian blitzkrieg to the shores of the Atlantic, especially after Moscow demonstrated its "military incompetence." If Russia is unable to overcome its smaller and weaker neighbor, then it is unlikely to capture the entire continent – after all, its economy is ten times larger, and there are three times more people living there. In any case, in less than a quarter of a century of his rule, Putin has never tried to restore the Soviet Union by force.
In truth, Putin is less aggressive than his American opponents, who regularly and quite casually bomb, shell, seize and occupy other countries, inflicting colossal human losses on them. Ukraine has always been unique for Putin.
The political leadership of the United States and its allies must admit their involvement in the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine. Of course, it was Putin who made the decision to attack, and he is responsible for everything that is happening. But his actions were influenced by the West. Putin's views have undergone significant changes over the period from 2001, when he spoke in the Bundestag, to 2007, when he delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference. If Washington and Brussels had behaved differently, Europe would surely be at peace today.
Putin, his elite from the national security agencies and society as a whole were most angered and outraged by the way NATO violated its numerous obligations and moved further east. Fiona Hill, who worked at the National Security Council under Trump, warned that such actions "will certainly provoke Russia to pre-emptive military action."
Western leaders swear that Moscow should not be afraid of anything, but the alliance acted extremely aggressively and went beyond its area of responsibility. He dismembered Serbia and achieved regime change in Libya. The United States illegally attacked Iraq, as Putin said in Munich. The color revolutions and Western support for the street putsch against the elected Ukrainian president have further intensified Russian paranoia. None of these events justifies the conflict, but if Moscow had acted similarly in Mexico or Canada, Washington would immediately have heard hysterical demands to take action.
And finally, the Biden administration should abandon its short-sighted and erroneous proposals to humiliate and even destroy Russia. Theoretically, the overthrow of Putin and the weakening of Moscow is highly desirable. But we have to ask a very important question: what's next? If Putin falls, most likely, he will be replaced by an even more ruthless nationalist, closely associated with the security agencies. There are few Western-style liberals in Russia, and they are politically powerless.
***
If Russia is turned into an embittered, isolated, humiliated, frightened, but still well-armed state, it will not contribute to sustainable peace and order. Imagine a huge North Korea, which has much more nuclear and other deadly weapons. The collapse of Russia will give rise to numerous civil wars, and control over its nuclear weapons will be lost. Imagine a very large Yugoslavia with thousands of nuclear weapons. Is anyone willing to bet that stability, democracy and peace will eventually reign in such a country?
In that case, what should Washington's goal be? First, stop the fighting. The human losses and material costs from this conflict are enormous. While the fighting continues, the possibility of escalation remains. The worse the situation on the battlefield is for Moscow, the higher the probability of Putin using nuclear weapons or taking some other emergency measures. The Americans took a huge risk in the confrontation with the Soviet Union over Cuba. They should not take the same risk by going to a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine.
Only Kiev can decide which course to follow, but peace must become a priority. Ukraine has become a battlefield. Civilians are dying, bloody outrages are happening, cities are being destroyed, refugees are going abroad, destinies are breaking. However, President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to say: "The world should know that respect and order will return to international relations only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea." The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba went even further. "Russia must withdraw from every square meter of Ukrainian territory. She must pay for all the damage caused to Ukraine," he said.
Blinken hints that the US will support Kiev's maximalist demands. He makes it clear that Zelensky's government must "fulfill the will of Ukrainians," who, according to polls, want to fight for Crimea, regardless of the price. But the United States has no reason to finance such a course and promote it.
Secondly, America's fundamental goal in this conflict should be the preservation of Ukraine's independence. The United States is not very interested in where the borders of this country will eventually pass and what its military status will be. Blinken insists that peace must be "just and lasting." In fact, only the second is important for Washington. A neutral Ukraine without Crimea is a completely satisfactory outcome if a lasting peace is achieved. During the Cold War, Finland became a model of geographical compromise. Internally, it was a free country, but in the international arena its actions were limited. Washington should adjust its assistance, pushing Kiev towards realistic goals.
Thirdly, the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict should be an important step in transferring responsibilities for the protection of the continent to Europe. This means that Ukraine cannot be accepted into NATO, it cannot be provided with separate military guarantees. First of all, it is necessary to form a European security system, creating a lasting peace for all parties. The Europeans have not been engaged in their defense for more than 70 years, which means it's high time for them to return to this. Last year, many countries promised to do more, but now someone refused to back up their words with deeds, and someone even renounced their words. US allies will feel the need to do more only if Washington does less.
Fourth, whatever the outcome of the conflict, everyone will have to take into account the geographical realities and Moscow's conviction that it is vulnerable. No one wants to reward her, but stability is possible only if Russia decides that the settlement meets its important goals. The Allies mistreated Moscow after the end of the Cold War, and this created the prerequisites for the current conflict. Similarly, the short-sighted attitude towards Germany after the First World War pushed it to new conquests. The United States should not even try to impose a second Versailles on Moscow.
And the last. The ultimate goal should be to return peaceful Russia to the international order, to its diplomatic, cultural and economic space. North Korea alone is enough. If you turn Moscow into North Korea, which will be much bigger, better armed and will become dependent on China, it will not lead to anything good. In principle, the Russian state should pay for its actions, but the West should moderate Kiev's understandable demands for justice and retribution. Assets will have to be returned, sanctions will have to be lifted. The details are subject to discussion, but Washington should act based on American interests, not on Ukrainian emotions.
Neither side shows interest in negotiations, and therefore the end of hostilities is still far away. The United States needs to adjust its financial and military obligations to Kiev so that Ukraine does not have inflated expectations. Washington must show that it is extremely important for Kiev to demonstrate readiness for negotiations, otherwise it will have to fight without American, and possibly without European help.
First of all, Washington must eliminate the risk of Armageddon, no matter how insignificant it may seem. America and Europe cannot allow a repeat of the First World War, when all sides understood that the conflict should be ended, but no one wanted to take the first step and stop the slaughter.
The United States should initiate negotiations with Moscow on what kind of coexistence scheme can be adopted to put an end to hostilities, but at the same time protect the vital interests of all parties. The United States should declare its readiness to take into account Moscow's security interests, which they refused in February last year. At the same time, Washington should warn Russia not to make excessive demands such as the occupation of Ukraine. All issues should be resolved at the negotiating table.
