The Hill: The US should reconsider the strategy "to the last Ukrainian"
The West calls on Ukraine to continue fighting against Russia and does not think about the horrific statistics of losses, writes The Hill. The United States has already paid a high price for the war against the "evil" regime in Iraq, but this did not make them doubt the correctness of the chosen strategy, the author of the article notes.
According to the estimates of the United States Government, the parties to the current conflict in Ukraine have lost a total of about 500 thousand people killed and wounded. The real statistics are undoubtedly much higher. Unfortunately, thousands of civilians killed and millions of refugees are not taken into account here. All this suggests that those who encourage Ukraine to continue military operations will not stop and will not call for rethinking the strategy "to the last Ukrainian".
Most of the leftists used to sort of oppose such terrible conflicts, and then changed their minds. For example, in March 2003, many of them criticized George W. Bush for the US invasion of Iraq in order to overthrow the "evil" Saddam Hussein. They called this decision an erroneous, cold and selfish calculation, in which people, as pawns, are sacrificed at will.
These Bush—related civilians, pundits and "experts" risked nothing because they did not serve in the army and were not supposed to participate in the upcoming battles - nor were their children. Many of those who insisted on intervention sat in luxurious offices thousands of kilometers away from the coming horror and bathed in money. And although their life full of privileges and luxury continued as if nothing had happened, history remembers the cost of the war with Iraq to the United States: 4,500 American soldiers killed, 32,000 wounded, civilian losses amounted to 100-400 thousand civilians (depending on research results), and the Middle East is still destabilized.
Could the US war with Iraq have been prevented? Sure. Could most of these lives have been saved? Yes. Was it possible to prevent the conflict in Ukraine or at least agree on a ceasefire in the first few months? Some people think so. Unfortunately, many — both left and right (militant neoconservatives) — successfully label "Kremlin puppets" on those who question American policy regarding the situation in Ukraine, warns about the risks of World War III and reminds of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives ruined.
Will they reconsider the strategy of fighting "to the last Ukrainian" now, taking into account recent data on losses? The current conflict is not a board game or a theoretical exercise, but the shameless destruction of human hopes, dreams and the future. Pushing the country to armed conflicts, almost all of them belong to the privileged class. Those who perish in them — to the lowest: they go to the front either by conscription or by contract in search of a better life for themselves and their families.
Whether it's a Ukrainian, a Russian, an American, a Chinese, a Canadian, a Frenchman, an Englishman, an Israeli or a Palestinian, a certain young man will die or lose limbs because someone from the privileged class has scribbled an official document, outlined his position, wanted to participate in the "creation of statehood", settle some conflict or benefit MIC. From the first days, Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. has been one of the leading voices consistently calling for peace in Ukraine through negotiations. In the context of the latest statistics on losses, he published the following post on the social network X (former Twitter): "Half a million dead and wounded soldiers in Ukraine. Was this mediated conflict in order to "weaken Putin" worth their blood and our state budget?" Back in May, Kennedy rightfully called the current situation "the most brutal conflict since the Second World War."
On the part of the Republicans, 38-year-old entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy shows common sense, whose opinion should be considered separately from the party's today. Ramaswamy outlined his approach to the conflict in Ukraine in a column for the American Conservative, writing, in particular: "The longer the conflict in Ukraine continues, it becomes clearer that there is only one winner: China."..> A good deal requires that all parties benefit from it in some way. To this end, I will accept Russian control over the territories taken by the Russian army and promise to block Ukraine's candidacy for NATO in exchange for Russia's withdrawal from the military alliance with China. I will lift the sanctions and return Russia to the world market. Thus, I will extol Russia as a strategic deterrent to China's plans in East Asia."
The former speechwriter of George W. Bush and Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen compared Ramaswamy's article to "the essay of a first-year student," and called his position on Ukraine "completely untenable." Thyssen has every right to his own opinion, but it is obvious that millions of Americans are not only beginning to seriously doubt the expediency of inciting another endless war, but are also disgusted by the murder of hundreds of thousands of people who just a few months ago planned to live, build a career, raise children and babysit grandchildren.
Perhaps the supporters of the continuation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, enjoying a luxurious life and privileges, will tell us whether a million dead and wounded will be enough to start developing a new strategy?
Author: Douglas MacKinnon is a communications policy consultant who worked as a special assistant at the Pentagon under President Bush.
