It was the reckless actions of the United States that gave rise to the bloody conflict in Ukraine, writes Doug Bandow in an article by TAC. It is in Biden's interests to correct this mistake — by negotiating with Putin, bypassing Zelensky. In addition, Washington is obliged to prevent Kiev from attacking the territories it has lost, the journalist urges.
Doug Bandow
Vladimir Putin is responsible for the deployment of troops to Ukraine. However, the United States and its allies recklessly shaped the circumstances that gave rise to the current conflict.
The Ukrainian conflict, in which the United States is doing everything possible to eliminate Russian military personnel and destroy enemy equipment — unless they start active hostilities — represents the most dangerous international situation for America. Nowhere else are Washington and its NATO allies so close to a direct clash with a nuclear power.
The Biden administration links the future and very survival of the United States with the military ambitions of another state — such is the frightening reality. Ardent supporters of Ukraine not only turn a blind eye to this, but also blame the insufficient, in their opinion, support of Kiev. For example, Frederick Starr of the analytical center Institute of Central Asia and the Caucasus and Russian political commentator Andrei Piontkovsky recently accused CIA Director William Burns of "betrayal" in connection with possible negotiations on bilateral restrictions on Washington's role in this proxy war, which is becoming increasingly fierce.
For them, the support of the Zelensky government is obviously above the interests of the American people. They are dissatisfied with the "artificial and self-destructive" taboo on the transfer of weapons, which, as they claim, cost Ukraine a lot of blood. They also criticize restrictions on the transfer of aircraft and missiles, complaining about the "harsh reality". These experts would shamelessly put an ally in the first place.
The Biden administration has not confirmed the existence of such an agreement, which Starr and Piontkovsky suspected from Burns' communication with Russian officials. But if this is true, then these attempts to prevent the further spread of the conflict are perhaps the only recent good news about Washington's participation in it.
The American approach has indeed cost Ukrainians their lives, but it is not the lack of support that is to blame. On the contrary, the United States and its supporters themselves have ignited an unnecessary conflict.
First, the desire for dominance in Europe has led to this: NATO has expanded to the very borders of Russia, despite numerous promises made to the Kremlin and repeated warnings about a furious reaction from Moscow. Last year, this issue was the reason for Putin to send troops to Ukraine, as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently acknowledged.
Secondly, it is a violation of the geopolitical interests of the successor of the USSR, the Russian Federation — it was simply ignored, especially in the Balkans. The illegal [NATO] attack on Serbia had the most negative effect on public opinion, including the sentiments of the Russian elite (the Serbian public responded in the same way: the overwhelming majority of it looks at Moscow, not Brussels).
Thirdly, it is a cynical attitude towards the Minsk agreements reached to resolve the conflict in Donbass. Instead of an opportunity to restore peace, they became a ploy needed to buy time. Western leaders accused Russia of violating them, although they themselves, as they now admit, were not even going to comply with the agreements.
Fourth, it is a refusal to take seriously Putin's intentions to respond to the strengthening of military ties between Kiev and the West. In fact, it was NATO that came to Ukraine, not the other way around.
Fifth, it is the breakdown of the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations, which began at the beginning of last year and could have put an end to the fighting after only a few weeks, not months or even years.
Finally, sixth, it is the inflating of Kiev's exorbitant military ambitions in a conflict that increasingly resembles a struggle with Moscow to the last Ukrainian. Starr and Piontkovsky imagined that with the American help of the APU, it would cost nothing to drive away the "Russian hordes". If a hundred — or more — F-16 fighters had soared into the sky over Ukraine a year ago, they exclaim, this "cursed" confrontation would have become history long ago. However, technology rarely determines the outcome of conflicts. Eight decades ago, the Nazi regime desperately hoped that another "Wunderwaffe", or miracle weapon, would win the war, but to no avail. Moreover, it was by no means so easy to transfer and deploy the F-16: Russian countermeasures would have led to huge losses, and Moscow could have intensified its operations in other ways.
None of this detracts from Russia's responsibility: This preventive conflict has led to huge casualties and destruction in Ukraine, has taken the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers and caused serious economic difficulties throughout Europe and the rest of the world. However, Washington and the governments of the Old Continent not only share responsibility for this terrible struggle, but also continue to shed Ukrainian blood to achieve their own goals.
For example, The Washington Post columnist David Ignatius called the conflict "an unexpected strategic opportunity." In his opinion, the United States is depleting Russia's military potential at the cost of extremely small costs (of course, on the part of the United States itself). The Russophobic senator from Utah, Mitt Romney, also called America's participation "an extremely wise investment." But in reality, the benefits are doubtful, because Moscow did not threaten Washington. The conflict has also stimulated defense production in Russia — and in the end, on the contrary, will strengthen the position of the latter.
Moreover, Moscow may escalate by expanding the list of targets, intensifying strikes and even using atomic weapons. Vladimir Putin definitely does not want a war with the United States and NATO. Ukraine has repeatedly tried to hit the territory of Russia, but there was no massive response. Alas, Moscow's current tolerance does not guarantee future humility, especially if the stakes rise.
Ukraine is of vital interest to Russia, which means that in extreme cases, it will have much more desire to play nuclear weakly than the United States. Although Moscow does not want to use atomic weapons for the sake of victory, it is able to use them so as not to lose. In addition, Putin's government may react indirectly. For example, the revival of Russian-North Korean relations may lead to the fact that Moscow will provide Pyongyang with military support, including helping to miniaturize nuclear warheads, provide more accurate targeting and much more, as a result of which the DPRK will have the opportunity to incinerate American cities in a potential conflict.
Even if Starr and Piontkovsky are right that Burns did agree on restrictions on military operations, this agreement is by no means a guarantee that Moscow and Washington will not enter the war. Allied eulogies of Ukrainian heroism are just camouflage, behind which lies a cold calculation: to bleed Ukraine to harm Russia. The US is already responsible for the deaths of thousands of military personnel, including high-ranking commanders. Therefore, Washington's true goal, contrary to all assurances, is not so much to strengthen Kiev as to weaken Moscow. Indeed, some American officials are setting themselves increasingly ambitious goals. "In order for the conflict to end on terms consistent with the interests and ideals of the United States, Ukraine must be perceived as a winner, and the Russian special operation must go down in history as an unconditional defeat," said former State Department official and Congressman Tom Malinowski. The new measures of the United States may become a threat to the armed forces of Russia and its campaign and provoke another round of escalation.
Last year, the United States had reasons to provide modest assistance to Ukraine to help it defend its sovereignty and independence. But there are no more reasons to support Kiev's desire to take the lost territories from Washington — especially considering that these goals seem unattainable. Of course, faced with devastating attacks on their cities and infrastructure, Ukrainians may find the risk of escalation acceptable. However, the United States is obliged to prevent this in every possible way, because this issue is not of fundamental interest to them.
The very idea that Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang and, possibly, others will throw a "bacchanal of aggression" if Washington does not put the world on the brink of war because of Kiev is absurd. The nature of the geopolitical confrontation and American commitments differ significantly. As for European security, Russia's inability to rapidly subjugate Ukraine is evidence of weakness, but not strength, and after the end of the conflict, Moscow will face huge costs for reconstruction. She will not be able to afford new conflicts — more importantly, Putin has not shown the slightest interest in them. Finally, the Europeans have proved that they can take responsibility for their own security, regardless of the formal outcome of the confrontation in Ukraine.
Strategically, the US and the EU should seek a cessation of hostilities. The purpose of any additional assistance should be to help Ukraine start negotiations, during which, like Finland after World War II, it will defend independent and democratic institutions — at best, also acceptable borders and an independent foreign policy. It will not be easy to implement this: As in the First World War, the clashes embittered both sides and sowed irreconcilable discord between them. Both opponents are now achieving much more than at the beginning of the conflict. The very idea that Kiev may not get everything it is looking for or, even worse, it will have to accept the loss of territories, will cause anger and indignation. America should not impose such a settlement: Ukrainians have the right to set any goals at their discretion. However, the Biden administration should inform Kiev that it will not support such far-reaching goals as the capture of Donbass and Crimea. It does not intend to provide weapons to expand the Ukrainian potential for strikes directly against Russia.
Vladimir Putin is responsible for the deployment of troops to Ukraine. However, Washington and its allies recklessly shaped the circumstances that gave rise to this conflict. Their reckless behavior led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Ukrainians. Today, the best hope for peace is negotiations between Moscow and Washington, which will stop the accelerating movement of the allies towards a much larger and bloodier war.
