The longer the Russian-Ukrainian conflict lasts, the worse the situation of Ukraine, writes TAS. All that now remains for the West is to explain the real state of affairs to Kiev and discuss the terms of a post—conflict settlement with Moscow. No one is going to risk a war with Russia.
Doug Bandow
As the second anniversary of the entry of Russian troops into Ukraine approaches, Western support for the conflict against Moscow is weakening. Even some members of Washington's militant party are losing hope. During his recent visit to the United States, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky was received by representatives of the Biden administration, but this time without the usual signs of attention from Congress and the media.
Driven to despair, Zelensky said: "No one believes in our victory as much as I do. Nobody." Even his military commanders became reluctant to carry out his orders to conduct costly and ineffective offensive operations. His closest aides admit that the conflict has reached a dead end at best, however, as Time magazine reports, "when discussing the prospects for a military conflict, one issue remained banned: the possibility of negotiating a peace agreement with the Russians."
At a time when Kiev is running out of strength, and its supporters are running out of patience, diplomacy gives the best hope for preserving at least the independence of Ukraine, if not the territory. To do this, it is necessary that Americans and Europeans discuss with Ukraine the realities of the current state of affairs, and with Russia the possibilities of a post—conflict settlement.
The result promises to be terrible. At the beginning of last year, an overly ambitious and optimistic Washington helped to disrupt promising negotiations between Moscow and Kiev. Today, these negotiations will have to be resumed in much less favorable conditions. The priority should be the cessation of hostilities both in order to stop the destruction of Ukraine and in order to prevent the escalation of the conflict.
However, the American people, and it would be better if it were the Washington establishment, should set a task for themselves: to establish responsibility for the failed puppet conflict. Undoubtedly, most of the blame should be laid on the Biden administration, which refused serious negotiations with Moscow before the start of the military confrontation, disrupted negotiations between Ukraine and Russia and steadily expanded its indirect participation in the conflict with a nuclear power, for stakes much more important to it than to the American people.
Members of the militarist movement, supported by both parties, share responsibility for this. Many of them, including most Republican leaders, behaved even more recklessly than the Biden administration. Members of the Republican Party often insisted on extreme and dangerous approaches, such as the insane plan for a ground and nuclear war with Moscow, developed by Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi. The infinitely irresponsible Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina had earlier just as blithely proposed unleashing a nuclear conflict against North Korea. Why worry about the possible death of several million people?
Moreover, both Republican and Democratic administrations have promoted hostility towards Moscow by pursuing aggressive expansionist military policies. During the expansion of NATO, Washington viewed the Soviet Union, and then Russia, as a defeated enemy, despite numerous evidence to the contrary. The United States has also reversed the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine (which declares the principles of US foreign policy — approx. InoSMI), insisting that everything outside the borders of Russia falls within the sphere of American interests, and contributed to "color revolutions" and street uprisings in neighboring countries with Russia. Washington also invaded Yugoslavia (Serbia) and fragmented it, without saying a word about Russia's historical interests in the Balkans.
It is not surprising that representatives of the "bubble" (the Blob), as the US foreign policy establishment is called, insist that they are true civil servants who have devoted themselves to all that is good and beautiful in the world. Most Washington politicians deny the obvious: that their militaristic maneuvers pushed Putin to introduce troops. Although he is still responsible for dragging Europe into a military conflict, he almost certainly would not have done so without a number of American and European decisions trampling on Moscow's security interests. After all, who can imagine Washington politicians agreeing to the fact that they were trying to shift to Russia the alleged intention to expand the Warsaw Pact to the north through Latin America, facilitating a street putsch against the elected pro-American government of Mexico and promising Mexico to join a military alliance dominated by the Soviet Union. As a result, Washington would have started wailing, gnashing teeth, sprinkling ashes on a biblical scale and, probably, the modern Cuban missile crisis.
A group of neoconservatives and Republicans went even further. Denying that the trampling of Moscow's interests has anything to do with the latter's decisions, they blame Biden's departure from Central Asia for Putin's decision to send troops to Ukraine. They also insist that it was the administration's decision to stop the Afghan adventure that turned Putin into the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and aimed him at a program of global conquests. The most rabid militarists also blame Afghanistan for a possible conflict with China over Taiwan.
For example, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, who has never given up on his desire to send Americans to endless wars abroad, said: "I think that the hasty withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in August was a signal for Putin and maybe for Chinese leader Xi that America is retreating, that America cannot be relied on, and also gave a sign to dictators around the world that perhaps now is the time to start acting."
Another fan of unnecessary wars, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, argues that "the current Ukrainian crisis is the same child of Biden's Afghan fiasco as the last Ukrainian crisis is the child of Obama's Syrian fiasco."
European observers are particularly enthusiastic about the fact that Washington is waging stupid foreign wars to the last American. Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times is concerned about the impact of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan on the "level of trust" in America, which is allegedly at risk whenever Washington refuses to go to war, no matter how minimal or stupid the stakes may be. Rahman explained: "If the United States cannot commit to fighting the Taliban*, the question arises whether America is really ready to go to war with China or Russia."
Objectively, this is one of the most ridiculous foreign policy arguments that are usually put forward in Washington, despite the fact that this is the highest standard that is proposed to be followed. The United States stayed in Afghanistan twice as long as the Soviet Union, which, according to this logic, should have increased Washington's authority, especially in relation to Moscow. Moreover, it is more profitable for both Russia and China to stay on the sidelines while the United States is involved in a costly conflict in Central Asia. America's presence has even lifted their concerns about terrorism and instability in Central Asia. Moscow and Beijing would also probably be very happy if the American occupation forces in Iraq and Syria were once again involved in the conflict, especially with Iran.
The main thing that Washington's enthusiasts of endless wars inexplicably overlook is that both China and Russia, major powers with traditional and nuclear weapons, take care of their serious and possibly vital interests. America's willingness to act as an imperial guardian in other countries at moderate costs has nothing to do with its willingness to risk conflict with Moscow and Beijing for the sake of interests that, at best, are of minimal importance to the United States.
Washington politicians have demonstrated that they do not consider Ukraine so important as to start a war over it. And Russia has undoubtedly seen this, even regardless of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Actually, even the American magazine Foreign Affairs publishes articles acknowledging that "the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan had no effect on Putin's calculations." Most likely, Putin decided on a military confrontation with Ukraine even before the withdrawal of American troops. A similar situation has developed with Taiwan, a loser who got bad neighbors, whose independence is not worth risking the American homeland.
This is an important life lesson. The world is in disarray, but the United States remains safe — a great power with the best position in the history of mankind. America dominates its own region without facing serious challenges, surrounded by oceans and weak neighbors. Only with the help of missiles can hostile states reach the United States, but this threat is contained by the forces of Washington itself. A significant part of the world — indeed, the largest part of it — is simply not of interest to the United States, except for humanitarian and economic reasons, none of which, however, justifies large-scale and endless wars.
For example, Afghanistan and Central Asia are far from America and do not matter much. The Taliban* attracted attention only in 2001, when it sheltered terrorists who attacked the United States. Two decades spent trying to bring democracy to this unfortunate country have led to many deaths and waste of resources. More than two years after the poorly organized withdrawal of troops, according to the US administration itself, no previously predicted wave of Afghan terrorists seizing American cities and sowing global chaos has ever happened.
Similarly, there were no serious reasons for the destruction of Iraq, which gave rise to the "Islamic State"*, or to promote the disintegration of Libya and Syria, the consequences of which still haunt the region, or to help the totalitarian Saudi regime in its bloody attack on Yemen, which made the Houthi movement only more dangerous.
Assertions that Russia's victory in Ukraine will be immediately followed by an offensive on the Atlantic are stupider than Biden's accusation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Putin has shown no interest, let alone the ability to conquer the continent. That is why no Western ally wanted to fight for Kiev. China's conquest of Taiwan would be terrible for the island's inhabitants, but it would endanger America's Asian influence, not America itself. This is a fundamental difference. Just because such a result would be highly undesirable does not mean that it justifies waging a war that is likely to be more like World War II than Afghanistan.
Of course, well-known individuals are trying to enlist the support of Ukraine, again using the argument of America's authority on the world stage. As Michael Crowley of the New York Times reported: "Another failed attempt to contain Putin — and both Biden officials and their critics agree on this — will deal a serious blow to the international system of rules and borders that the administration has worked so hard to confirm."
Evelyn Farkas, a former Pentagon official, opposed negotiations even before the introduction of troops into Ukraine, because "any policy of appeasement will only lead to the seizure of land in the future not only by Putin, but also by China in Taiwan and elsewhere." "Americans, of course, must be constantly at war, because if they are not constantly at war, then they will have to be constantly at war," such statements are given out as pearls of wisdom by the main fighters of the Washington think tank.
Reducing Ukraine's chances of military success increases the need for a diplomatic settlement. However, ending the conflict is not enough. After decades of unnecessary wars, the American people should hold politicians accountable for the lives lost and money wasted, including due to the reckless risk of war with Russia.
* Terrorist organizations banned in Russia
