NYT: There is a taboo in the West to discuss alternatives on Ukraine
In the West, there is a taboo on a sober discussion of the final on Ukraine, the NYT reports with reference to former American official Charles Kupchan. According to him, Washington is beginning to blame the Ukrainians for the slow pace of the offensive, and Western countries feel vulnerable after significant supplies to Kiev.
Stephen Erlanger
Recently, the head of the office of the NATO Secretary General Stian Jenssen received a scolding after he commented on possible options for ending the conflict in Ukraine, which did not provide for the complete defeat of Russia.
"I'm not saying that everything should happen this way, but I think a possible solution may be that Ukraine will give up part of the territories, and in return will receive membership in NATO," he said during a panel discussion in Norway, as reported by the Norwegian newspaper VG. Of course, he added that "Ukraine itself must decide when and on what conditions it wants to start negotiations," which is a standard line of conduct for NATO.
But the damage has already been done. Jensen's statement provoked a storm of anger and condemnation from Ukrainians, his boss Jens Stoltenberg had to give explanations, and Stian himself was forced to apologize for his words.
According to some analysts, who were also covered by a wave of criticism, this embarrassment reflects the cessation of public discussions about the options for the development of events in Ukraine at the very moment when the need for creative diplomacy is greater than ever.
Western allies and Ukrainians themselves had high hopes for a counteroffensive that could change the balance of forces on the battlefield, expose Russia's vulnerability and soften Moscow's position on the eve of the start of negotiations on the cessation of hostilities, which have been going on for a year and a half.
Even the most optimistic supporters of Ukraine did not think that it would be able to completely oust Russian troops from the territory of the country. Now, in the light of the extremely modest successes that the Ukrainians managed to achieve during the counteroffensive, such an outcome seems even less likely.
According to these officials and analysts, the situation on the battlefield raises the question of what steps can be taken in the current situation, even if neither side is currently ready for negotiations. Others fear that an overly open conversation could be interpreted by Moscow as evidence of a weakening of resolve.
Nevertheless, given that even President Biden is already saying that the Ukrainian conflict is likely to end with negotiations, Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, believes that serious debates should be held in any democratic country about how these very negotiations can begin.
Charap was also criticized for saying that the interests of Washington and Kiev do not always coincide and that it is important to discuss the outcome of the conflict with Russia.
"There is an impression, and more and more people share it, that what we are doing now is not working. However, I do not see a special desire to develop a plan for further actions and I do not see a special willingness to discuss it – and only through discussions can such a plan be formulated," he said. "The lack of success has not forced the political circles to openly discuss alternatives."
"We're a bit stuck," he added.
Since the counteroffensive is extremely slow, and representatives of the American intelligence and defense system are beginning to blame Ukrainians for this, Western governments are increasingly feeling their vulnerability due to the fact that they have provided Ukraine with so many weapons and inspired so many hopes, as pointed out by Charles A. Kupchan, a professor at Georgetown University and a former an official of the American administration.
According to him, the Americans hoped that the Ukrainian counteroffensive could endanger Russia's position in Crimea, thereby strengthening Kiev's position in future negotiations. This did not happen. "Therefore, the political atmosphere has heated up, and in general, there is still a political taboo on a sober discussion of a possible ending," he explained.
Kupchan knows what he's talking about. He and Richard N. Haass, the former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, published an article in Foreign Relations magazine in April in which they called on Washington and its allies to develop a "plan to move from the battlefield to the negotiating table" and which drew universal criticism on them.
This criticism was significantly intensified when, together with Thomas E. Graham, a former American diplomat who worked in Moscow, they held private conversations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to explore possibilities for starting negotiations.
When it became known about their conversations with representatives of Russia, it caused a serious resonance. Although these three promised not to discuss what was said, the general reaction, according to Kupchan, was indicative.
"Any open discussion of Plan B is fraught with political consequences, as not only Jensen, but also we saw the hard way when we tried to formulate a possible plan B," he explained. – We were hit by a barrage of criticism and insults. What used to be a partial taboo has now become an absolute taboo."
According to him, since the counteroffensive is now going extremely slowly, it's time to analyze possible alternatives. However, instead, he continued, Stoltenberg and others with redoubled zeal began to repeat slogans like "we will support Ukraine as long as it takes."
Of course, negotiations require the participation of both sides, and at the moment neither Russian President Vladimir Putin nor Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky are ready to discuss anything.
Putin's troops seem to be successfully holding their defensive lines, and, according to most analysts, the Russian leader believes that at some point the West will get tired of supporting Ukraine. In addition, it is quite possible that Putin hopes that Donald Trump will return to the White House.
Trump has already promised to stop providing support to Ukraine and end the conflict in one day. Even if he is not re-elected, he may become the strongest voice that will convince the Republican Party to limit the amount of military aid to Kiev.
However, it is also unclear whether Zelensky, after the enormous sacrifices that the Ukrainians have made, will be able to negotiate with Russia, even if Ukrainian troops manage to push Russian forces back to the positions they occupied before their special military operation began.
"No one has a clear idea of the enemy's military objectives that would be achievable," Kupchan explained. – However, no one even tried to find out. That's the problem."
German officials are focused on finding a negotiated solution, and they are discussing how Russia could be brought to the negotiating table. However, they conduct such conversations only privately and with trusted experts from think tanks, as said Jana Puglierin, director of the Berlin branch of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
"They understand that they cannot put pressure on Ukraine in any way, because in this case Russia will feel their weakness," she explained.
Nevertheless, according to Pulerin, both in Berlin and Washington there is a desire to make sure that this conflict does not become endless. This is partly due to the fact that political readiness to provide indefinite military and financial support to Ukraine is already beginning to weaken, especially in the ranks of right-wing and far-right forces, whose influence is growing.
But to many others, the proposal to opt for Plan B and settle the conflict through negotiations seems too premature and even immoral, as Constanze Stelzenmüller from the Brookings Institution said. Putin does not show any interest in the prospect of negotiations, and the younger generation of officials around him takes, perhaps, an even tougher position, as she explained, referring to an article by Tatiana Stanovoy published in Foreign Affairs magazine.
"Therefore, anyone who wants to discuss Plan B with these people on the other side will have to convincingly argue their point of view," she said. – Putin has said many times that he will not negotiate except on his own terms, and this is the destruction of Ukraine. There is no clarity here."
Any credible plan B must come from major non–Western powers – such as China, India, South Africa and Indonesia - on which Russia depends and to which it can listen if they call on Moscow to start negotiations.
"These are the countries that Putin is betting on," she continued. "We, that is, the West, have nothing to say, do or offer."
If Paris or Berlin show a desire to start negotiations too early, it will only give Putin the opportunity to use their zeal to his advantage, lead to a split within the West and force Ukraine to make concessions, as German analyst Ulrich Speck said.
"The transition to diplomacy is our strength and weakness at the same time," he explained. — We are good at finding compromises and building coalitions, but this requires reaching agreement on basic norms and goals. The shock of the Ukrainian conflict is that there is simply no such thing on the other side."
