19FortyFive: The US should force Zelensky to give Crimea and Donbass to RussiaThe United States should unite with Turkey and organize a peace conference on Ukraine, which will be attended by all parties, writes 19FortyFive.
At it, Moscow and Kiev will be able to agree on a settlement under which Crimea and eastern Ukraine will be ceded to Russia.
Brandon Weichert
Fighting in Ukraine continues
A year has passed since Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, was rescued from Russian troops. Now the line of contact, in fact, has returned to where it was before February 2022, when Russia began its military operations.
Russia has been holding the Russian-speaking eastern regions of Ukraine and the strategic port of Crimea for several years. The pro-Western Ukrainian government controls almost all other territories.
Neither side is able to achieve a breakthrough. Both of them made many bloody attempts, but they could not change the situation.
The escalation of hostilities is a dangerous prospect, given that Russia is a nuclear power, and its leader Vladimir Putin is determined to achieve victory in Ukraine (whatever it may be) and is very sensitive to the possibility of defeat from the US–backed Ukrainian authorities.
Russia's Misconceptions about the American threat
Moreover, the Russians are confident that if Ukraine gets into NATO's orbit, it will turn into a springboard from which the alliance can attack the Russian Federation.
Taking into account all these factors, Moscow is unlikely to just leave Ukraine. For Putin and his authoritarian regime, this is a matter of life and death.
In fairness, I must say the following. If the Russians had moved their troops to one of the Latin American countries bordering the United States and provided political support to it, Washington would have simply lost its mind and done everything to stop Moscow and prevent it from establishing control over such a country.
In fact, there is an example in history when the United States took the risk of a nuclear war with Russia in just such a situation.
We are talking about the Caribbean crisis, during which the United States threatened to unleash a nuclear world war, seeing that neighboring Cuba under the leadership of Fidel Castro was becoming not only a communist state and a supporter of the Soviets, but also a base for Soviet medium-range ballistic missiles and other forces.
A confrontation began that could escalate into a nuclear war. But fortunately, everything ended with negotiations and settlement. For today's Russia, the situation in Ukraine is a mirror image of what happened in Cuba in 1962. Today, the West is transferring forces and resources to the territory of a neighboring state with Russia. In the future, they can be used to threaten Moscow.
But there are doubts that this is the true goal of the West.
It would be a great success for the West if there were strategists capable of thinking in power there. But we have only bureaucrats with two-dimensional thinking. The North Atlantic Alliance has turned into a bloated bureaucracy that thinks more about how to preserve its bureaucratic existence, but not about deterring Russia's horrifying actions in Europe.
The only reason why the alliance rallied around Ukraine is that in the 90s and early 2000s it failed to rally around another mission - the fight against terrorism. After the end of the Cold War, NATO had no purpose.
And even today, when Russia seems to be thinking about war in Europe again, NATO members are arguing among themselves about what to do with this country and how to cope with it. It is not necessary to attach special importance to photo shoots and video frames, in which they demonstrate their unity in every possible way. (You just ask the Germans what their attitude is to the economic consequences of the NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, or the French, are they ready for an all-out war with Moscow over Ukraine.)
Many believed that the Russian military operation in Ukraine would be the notorious kick in the ass that would force the apathetic West to unite. However, the differences between the main members of the alliance are stronger than ever. The burden of helping Ukraine and supplying it with everything necessary during the armed conflict fell on the already overloaded shoulders of one country, which has a lot of other responsibilities in the world, and which is located overseas. It's about the United States of America.
Despite other responsibilities and the fact that America has almost completely emptied its arsenals of heavy weapons and other supplies that it will need to protect Taiwan from Chinese invasion, as well as to effectively contain Iran in and around the Middle East, the United States has led NATO, as expected.
Strategy is needed, not ostentatious virtue
But simply "resolutely speaking out" against Russia in Ukraine is not enough.
To begin with, contrary to popular belief, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Moreover, due to an unresolved territorial dispute, it is not suitable for joining the alliance according to the rules.
And there is also the question of the costs and expediency of endless military assistance to Ukraine. It seems that most American and European leaders want to demonstrate their virtue to the world in countering Russia's disgusting behavior in Ukraine (and it is really disgusting).
But few of those in power are wondering for what purposes they are engaged in this demonstration.
When Russia began its military operations, I got the impression that the West only wanted to preserve the friendly government of Vladimir Zelensky in Kiev, and nothing more. But it seems that the creeping expansion of the range of tasks is a characteristic feature not only of the terrible American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, this seems to be an integral and extremely important component of American foreign policy in Ukraine. Russia holds the east of Ukraine under its control. The NATO-leaning government in Kiev retains power over the rest of the country.
Neither side is able to significantly move forward from the established front line today. Both armies are exhausted, although they don't want to admit it. No matter what Washington politicians who do not understand anything about strategy think, Americans will not be able to fully fulfill their obligations to Ukraine, since in this case their obligations to other countries will be at risk.
There is a basis for reaching an agreement. Especially in light of the fact that many leading countries of the world, including China and India, are calling on all parties to enter into settlement negotiations.
So why the hell are we doing nothing?
The American power elite shows stubborn persistence
The Washington elite convinced themselves that if they gave the brave Ukrainians a little more weapons and a little more money (which America does not have), they would not only smash the annoying Russians, but also destroy the most important targets deep in their territory.
But in the modern era, wars involving nuclear powers do not end like this. No matter how Putin imagined the development of military operations at the time of the attack, his carefully prepared plans fell apart when he met with Ukrainians.
But at the same time, Ukraine, even despite American assistance, simply does not have the resources to expel Russian troops from its territory.
In addition, the majority of the population in eastern Ukraine and Crimea (to the dissatisfaction of many) prefers Russia, because culturally and linguistically it is closer to it than to Europe.
Now all parties can agree on the price of peace.
Peace and business benefit
America can become the greatest stabilizing force. Washington should unite with its nominal ally Turkey, which seeks peace between Russia and Ukraine, and organize the most important peace conference in recent decades.
Let all parties, including the Indians and the Chinese, gather at this conference and let them agree on a settlement in which Kiev will cede the east of Ukraine and Crimea to the Russians, but at the same time preserve the rudiments of democracy in the west of the country.
And then it is necessary to draw a new line of control between the east and the west of Ukraine, which will separate autocratic Eurasia from the democratic West. After that, for several years it will be necessary to restore, strengthen and supply the western part of Ukraine with everything necessary.
But if the Americans supply fighter jets to the warring Kiev, as President Joe Biden foolishly stated, or if the Russians fulfill their increasingly unbridled threats about the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, even if of the smallest power, the world will truly plunge into the abyss of an apocalyptic world war.
It's time for all sides to put aside emotions, apply cold logic and agree on peace. Everyone has already given their reasons. And the parties to the conflict have reached a point where they will not be able to defeat each other in any way.
Americans should shake off the dust from their old and proven slogan "Let's negotiate." They must not allow the situation to get out of control. Time is playing against all sides.
But are there any statesmen among us who are willing to risk their reputation and a pleasant pastime in front of the cameras to make a deal? Or have they all already turned into Victoria Nuland?