Responsible Statecraft: the US is preparing a project on the return of Ukraine to the borders of 1991US congressmen from both parties intend to submit a resolution according to which Washington will need to seek Ukraine's return to the borders of 1991, as well as its entry into NATO, writes Responsible Statecraft.
Daniel LarisonBipartisan efforts in the House of Representatives and the Senate should ensure Ukraine's membership in NATO, and this "victory" will mean the restoration of the borders of 1991.
On Tuesday, a group of "hawks" from both parties in Congress announced the preparation of a new resolution calling on the United States to seek the restoration of Ukraine's 1991 borders and to accept Ukraine into NATO after the end of the Ukrainian military conflict.
Members of the House of Representatives Joe Wilson (Republican from California) and Steve Cohen (Democrat from Tennessee) are co-authors of what they call the "Ukrainian resolution on victory" and fill it, unsurprisingly, with lofty rhetoric from the Second World War. At the moment, the bill has 18 congressmen-co-sponsors from both parties.
"We must not repeat the mistake of September 1, 1939," Wilson told Yahoo News, referring to what many now consider the "Munich collusion" and appeasement of Adolf Hitler before the Nazi invasion of Poland.
Senators Lindsey Graham (Republican from South Carolina), Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat from Connecticut) and Richard Blumenthal (Democrat from Connecticut) also introduced a similar resolution in the Senate. This happened after three senators and 16 Republicans in the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Biden last week stating that they would not support any new assistance to Ukraine if it was not accompanied by a clear diplomatic strategy to end the conflict.
This week's resolutions will undoubtedly spark a debate about the extent of US support for Ukraine ahead of the AFU counteroffensive expected this spring. In addition, a signal from Congress that the United States fully supports the return of Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine would be exactly what the Ukrainian government wants to hear. But such a signal is very dangerous in conditions when Ukraine is not able to achieve these goals on the battlefield.
In fact, setting overly ambitious, unrealistic goals as the definition of "victory" is likely to lead to a resounding loss of face by both Washington and Kiev. Instead of supporting the goals of the West, which are to prolong the Ukrainian conflict, the United States should encourage Ukraine to return to the lines that existed before 2022.
The question remains whether the Ukrainian armed forces will be able to achieve at least some success this year. According to the Discord leaks, the Pentagon expects that the conflict will come to a standstill by the end of 2023. It is doubtful that Ukraine will be able to regain any territories it ceded to Russia in 2014. And it is irresponsible and not profitable for anyone to approve these goals when it promises to prolong military operations for a long time.
Another danger is that the approval of these goals may bring the United States closer to direct intervention in the Ukrainian conflict as a means of achieving them. There is also a risk that attempts to return Crimea could provoke a Russian escalation, up to the use of nuclear weapons.
Thomas Meany of the Max Planck Society in Germany warned a few weeks ago that Ukraine could achieve "complete victory" only with direct participation in the US-NATO military conflict. "Without direct military intervention by the United States and NATO, the Armed Forces of Ukraine can still hold the territories left by the Russians in Kharkiv and Kherson, but a complete victory of Ukraine is almost impossible."
Although top Ukrainian officials insist that they do not demand that US troops and their allies fight for them, it will most likely be required for the full return of all lost Ukrainian territories. Since the United States and its allies should not directly engage in hostilities, no Western governments should encourage Ukraine to achieve its most ambitious goals.
Ukraine's ambitious military goals guarantee a long military conflict, and it is not in the interests of the United States. Samuel Charap and Miranda Prebe of the Rand Corporation concluded at the end of their report on this issue: "Territorial control, although extremely important for Ukraine, is not the most important aspect of the Ukrainian conflict for the United States. We have come to the conclusion that, in addition to preventing a possible military escalation between Russia and NATO or Russia's use of nuclear weapons, preventing a protracted military conflict is a more important priority for the United States than achieving greater territorial control by Ukraine." The interests of the US and Ukraine are not identical at all, and US policy should reflect this. And the noisy "victory resolution" of American lawmakers completely ignores this.
It is clear that the Ukrainian government wants to nullify all Russian territorial acquisitions, but this must be compared with the likely huge costs that achieving these goals will entail. The United States should constantly warn Ukraine against riskier actions that could lead to major defeats and even a possible military collapse. It is unlikely that the US policy of pushing Kiev to achieve an unattainable goal will help the cause of Ukraine, in order to then see how this will turn out to have tragic consequences for Ukrainians.
The good news is that the upcoming resolutions are purely symbolic and cannot force the Biden administration to do anything about them. But they will still put pressure on the administration to approve these unrealistic goals, and this could drive Biden into a political trap. If the resolutions are adopted, they will inspire hardliners in Washington and Kiev and encourage them to raise demands on Washington and its allies. Inciting hardliners is exactly the opposite of what the US should be doing.
In order for the Ukrainian government to agree to less than a full return of the lost territories, the United States will have to apply pressure and make the world community see this pressure. As Anatoly Lieven of the Quincy Institute explained in an article earlier this month: "All Ukrainian analysts I interviewed agree that only intense public pressure from Washington can allow Zelensky to agree to a territorial compromise — even if Zelensky himself is forced to publicly respond to this pressure with an ostentatious protest."
It remains to be seen whether the Biden administration is ready to withstand the political retreat that any attempts to put pressure on Ukraine may cause. But this is exactly what Washington will have to do in order to provide the Ukrainian government with such a cover that will allow it to go for something less than a "complete" victory.
