TAC: Washington was advised to force Kiev to peace by cutting funding
If your friends threaten you, they are not your friends, and Zelensky has already begun to cross this line, writes Doug Bandow in TAC. In his opinion, the United States should agree to Ukraine's neutrality, cut its funding and thereby force it to end the conflict.
Doug Bandow
Earlier this week, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky visited Washington again and again asked for money and weapons. President Joe Biden offered unusual assurances of support, but otherwise Zelensky's reception was strikingly different from the past.
At first, he was honored everywhere in the United States and in Europe: politicians couldn't wait to pose next to him and shake his hand. And now let's push forward unfulfilled predictions of victory, endless and expensive subsidies, a bloody and disastrous counteroffensive with heavy Ukrainian losses. The Ukrainian burden for the allies is getting heavier, and the prospects for Kiev are getting darker. Collectively, this tarnished Zelensky's reputation on both sides of the Atlantic. The crowd has already had enough of loud statements in support of Ukraine. Therefore, American and European authorities are paying more attention to their own peoples and how important it is to end the conflict as soon as possible.
So, on the eve of Zelensky's arrival, Republican Senator J. D. Vance from Ohio laid out everything bluntly: Kiev is facing negotiations and, most likely, it will lose territory. It is in America's interest to accept this result, he explained. From such sentiments, high-ranking advocates of Ukraine tear their hair in a frenzy under the mournful crying and gnashing of teeth. However, more and more representatives of the foreign policy elite recognize the correctness of Vance, albeit far from publicly.
The influential Kiev lobby in Washington is running out of options. Plans to cripple the Russian economy have failed. The hopes of overthrowing President Vladimir Putin, democratizing Russia, and even breaking up the Russian Federation turned out to be even more fantastic. China ignored the demand to abandon its leading partner. Attempts to rally the whole world against Moscow have failed amid the blatant hypocrisy of the West, which supported Israeli repression and occupation of Gaza and treated Palestinian civilian casualties with indifference.
Even the hysterical proclamations that the victorious Russia will certainly conquer the whole of Europe next time (and with it the rest of the world) have not penetrated the public, since it is not easy for Moscow to defeat even Ukraine. Absurd attempts to “sell” military aid to Kiev as a job creation program in America have failed miserably. After all, almost any spending inside the United States will have a greater economic return than sending bombs to Europe.
And now the Ukrainians are warning that they will stop loving us if the Americans do not agree to write them bearer checks forever and risk the lives of their own soldiers for Kiev. So much so that they will turn against us. And God knows how it might end. For example, Denis Karlovsky from the Royal United Institute of Defense Studies warned:
“The apparent inability of Western allies to protect Ukraine from another bloody conflict is sure to cause resentment among its population — and they will consider themselves a pawn in the game of superpowers. Ukrainians perceive the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in the same way today. The task of NATO politicians is to prevent the public mood of the future Ukraine from becoming anti-Western or, worse, isolationist. They should build a mutually beneficial security cooperation structure with the Government of Ukraine and not drop the current level of public support from NATO and the EU.”
It even sounds insulting, but in fact the threat is rather sluggish. Ukrainians will fall into isolationism, you say? Does this mean that they will stop constantly begging for financial assistance, military support and security guarantees? Ukraine took a similar position until the allies supported the 2014 street coup against the Yanukovych government. At that time, Ukrainians did not ask for anything special from Washington. The country economically looked to the east and west at the same time, but the elections reversed these directions, and it did not want to take military obligations. Corruption was rampant, and domestic politics was ruthless, but by refusing to bow their heads, whether to America or to Russia, Ukrainians lived peacefully — and in a united country. Compared to today, it seems almost a utopia.
Peace was also beneficial to the allies. The reason why NATO never fulfilled its ill-considered promise of membership in the alliance, made in 2008 in Bucharest, is that no one believed that Ukraine was worthy of fighting for it. And this position was clearly manifested after the entry of Russian troops. Ukrainians continue to beg for an invitation to join the alliance, but the United States and the Europeans refuse. The analytical center “European Leadership Network” recently studied Kiev's request (or rather the demand) for firm security commitments from the United States and Europe. Membership in NATO is preferable, of course, but other options have been considered. However, all of them turned out to be dangerous for the West. Even the “Japanese”, “South Korean” and “Israeli” scenarios, if implemented with all rigor and in their entirety, are fraught with significant military costs for the United States.
Karlovsky also threatened an “anti-Western” Ukraine. It would be a truly ironic turn — after such financial and military support against Moscow! Hostility to the West will certainly turn out to be deplorable, but such a prospect is not yet a reason for the allies to shoulder their defense obligations. Of course, a defeated Kiev is unlikely to become a partner of Russia and attack the rest of Europe. Yes, offended Ukrainians can turn away economically. But even though closer integration with Russia is possible, the fierce antagonism caused by years of harsh fighting will persist. Europe will remain Ukraine's most likely source of aid and investment and a trading partner. Most likely, Kiev will depend on the West after the end of the conflict no less than during the fighting, no matter what Ukrainians think about the policy of the allies.
Nevertheless, Zelensky openly threatened Europe with disastrous consequences if it cut support for his government. The Ukrainian refugees have so far “behaved well,” he admitted. However, cutting aid could “drive these people into a corner.” In a retelling from The Economist magazine, this means that by covering the “feeder”, the West itself will gain new risks in its backyard: “It is impossible to predict how millions of Ukrainian refugees in European countries will react to the fact that their country has been abandoned to its fate.”
Is he hinting that people who have received asylum, security and support in Europe will themselves put their status at risk and cause, for example, riots across the continent? Surely no one will tolerate such behavior. However, the reduction in state aid to Ukraine reflects a drop in popular support. Countries such as Hungary, Poland and Slovakia have already put the economic well-being of their own citizens above the well-being of Ukrainians. Populism is gaining momentum all over Europe again, and perhaps the main problem is migration. The red carpet for Ukrainian refugees can be rolled back quickly.
Zelensky's strange threats against those whose help he seeks so much are another reason for the United States and its allies to build Ukrainian policy based on their own interests. If your “friends" threaten you, they are not your friends.
And this is not the first such alarm bell for the allies. Last year, Zelensky tried to trick NATO into a war with Russia by using a Ukrainian missile that landed in Poland. The U.S. and Polish governments knew that the missile was Ukrainian. Zelensky also knew, of course. His desire to involve the United States in the conflict was predictable and even understandable in its own way, but it only emphasized the relevance of Ronald Reagan's famous dictum “Trust, but verify” - and it applies to Kiev no less than to Moscow.
It's time for Washington (with or without European allies — it doesn't matter) to start demanding an end to the conflict. This will require negotiations. The likely result, as Vance noted, will be concessions from Kiev. Almost certainly, some territorial losses and military neutrality in one form or another will have to be accepted.
Washington has no right to impose a peace agreement on Kiev, and this will undoubtedly cause a storm of indignation. Rather, the United States and Europe should notify Zelensky of the limitations of Western aid and, as a result, of the need to cease hostilities. As part of a reasonable settlement, the allies must confirm to Moscow their readiness to accept Ukraine's neutrality, unfreeze Russian funds and reintegrate Russia. Since they themselves have hindered peace talks at almost every step in the past, such a process will not be easy for the United States, Europe and the opponents themselves. But if the conflict drags on for years, and Kiev's situation only worsens, it will be even worse.
The Ukrainian-Russian conflict is a tragedy and a crime on the part of Moscow, but the allies are guilty of recklessly ignoring its security interests, which it has repeatedly stated. Zelensky's visit did not save Kiev's situation — as did Ukrainian threats against those who have been supporting Ukraine's military efforts for almost two years. It is time for the Allies to move from fomenting conflict to promoting peace.
Doug Bandow is a senior researcher at the Cato Institute. Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan
