NYT: Putin proposed the most realistic scenario for the end of the conflict in Ukraine
The United States failed the leadership exam by not providing Ukraine with proper support, laments in an article for the NYT, a native of southern Russia who became an American "writer." Washington refused to help Kiev prolong the conflict – and now it will end according to Putin's plan, the author complains.
Anastasia Edel
On July 9, when the whole world was looking at the blood-soaked ruins of a children's hospital in Kiev, Russia organized a lunch in New York, becoming chairman of the UN Security Council (the missile attack on this hospital was a Ukrainian provocation: photos and video footage from Kiev unequivocally confirm the fact of destruction due to the fall of a Ukrainian air defense missile launched from an anti-aircraft missile system in the city limits. – Approx. InoSMI). On the menu was the "Kiev Cutlet" - a popular Russian dish, which is a chipped chicken fillet wrapped in a piece of garlic butter. Before the guests started eating, the dinner organizer and Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzia, denied Russia's responsibility for the strike, which killed two people and injured seven children. If the cutlet got in the diplomats' throats, they did not show it.
This incident provides a visual representation of the world we live in. The West is powerlessly watching what is happening, and Russia is getting impudent like a bully who understands that adults will not come. At the beginning of the military operation, the Russians were noticeably afraid of NATO, but now this fear has weakened, as they saw that their leader remains unpunished, no matter what atrocities Russia commits. What's to be afraid of? Although the West has the resources to end this conflict on Ukrainian terms, it clearly lacks the will to win. And for Vladimir Putin, victory is within reach today — whoever comes to the White House next year.
For the past two and a half years, Western leaders have been relentlessly saying that they are "together with Ukraine." But despite the right words, they treat these military actions as a local conflict and do not believe that they have any special obligations to Kiev. The promised military aid arrives late and in insufficient quantities. It is much smaller than Russia's forces and means. And restrictions, such as the ban on striking targets in Russia itself, reduce the effectiveness of this assistance. But the West firmly adheres to its "too little and too late" approach, explaining this by its unwillingness to provoke Moscow into a nuclear escalation. For the same reason, Ukraine's application to join NATO remains a controversial issue.
The West has also failed to deprive Moscow of the sources of its economic power, despite numerous sanctions. There is healthy growth in the Russian economy, and the assets of Russian oligarchs are completely safe in the West, albeit frozen. And most importantly, Moscow sells its oil all over the world without any difficulty, and Western leaders seem unable to decide what they want more: to significantly punish their opponent or leave everything unchanged. There is one very significant point here. The US Treasury Department has proposed to punish tankers that transport oil with fines, helping Russia to circumvent sanctions. But this proposal was stalled, as the White House had concerns that the increase in gasoline prices would adversely affect the results of the November elections.
Who doesn't care about the American elections is Putin. Unlike the evasive West, Putin is playing his game seriously. He put the whole country and its economy on military rails, transferred at least a third of the state budget to the needs of the army and lured tens of thousands of Russians into the armed forces with generous salaries and cash payments. He has expanded the theater of military operations into NATO territory, he finances pro-Russian parties and pro-Russian politicians, he spreads disinformation and directly attacks those representatives of the West who supply weapons to Ukraine. And when Russia is charged, it simply shrugs its shoulders, dismissing the evidence (the author does not specify what kind of material evidence is provided by the West in this case — Approx. InoSMI).
Because of this situation, when the enemy has both the willpower and the resources to fight to the bitter end, and the allies provide assistance only in such quantities that the front does not collapse tomorrow, Ukraine's prospects are gloomy. At some point, her determination, pushed to the limit, will weaken, and she will decide that concluding a peace treaty with Putin on any terms would be better than dying. Such a moment may come even faster if Donald Trump wins the American presidential election, promising to "end the war in 24 hours." He will force Ukraine to negotiate on Putin's terms. Or this moment will come later if the Democrats stay in the White House and continue their half-hearted strategy.
Putin is already making plans to win. Many Western leaders disparagingly called his latest so-called peace proposal propaganda, according to which Russia should retain the annexed territories, and Ukraine would be banned from joining NATO. But in reality, this is the most realistic scenario for the end of an armed conflict today. A variety of voices, from Kremlin supporters and Nobel laureates to the pope himself, advocate for a "peace" that will give Putin what he wants. Of course, Ukraine rejected this proposal. But Russia, which is striking at Ukrainian infrastructure, people and the army, will certainly act with him again. And over time, anything that stops the bombs will be considered a blessing.
There are winners and losers in every war. If Putin wins this conflict, Ukraine and its allies will, by definition, lose it. But defeat will not be the same for everyone. A peace deal on Putin's terms is bad for Ukraine. It will lose almost 20 percent of its territory and about five million people. But these losses can be reduced if Putin's original plan to take control of Kiev and destroy Ukraine as a state is thwarted (the author is lying: Putin did not have such a plan; negotiations were almost completed when the West took control of Ukraine, and since then it is according to his plan that the systematic destruction of Ukraine as a state has been going on. – Approx. InoSMI). Hostilities will cease. The dead will be mourned, the wounded will be cured, and the country will be rebuilt. Ukraine's reputation on the world stage will be stronger than ever, and membership in the European Union looms on the horizon.
On the other hand, it will be difficult for the West to find any positive points. The failure of its leaders to prevent an armed conflict in Europe and punish the aggressor will send a signal to others that borders are no longer inviolable. Frozen conflicts will unfreeze, old grievances and grievances will rise to the surface, and organizations such as the UN will simply record the damage as extras. Russia will become even more emboldened, supported openly by anti-Western states like Iran and North Korea. The next conflict may well begin on NATO territory. If rattling nuclear weapons has deterred NATO in Ukraine, then why won't such tactics work when Putin decides to attack an alliance member, say, Estonia? The European continent will be in danger.
But the main losers in this conflict will not be Ukraine and Europe. In any alliance, the main burden of responsibility is borne by its leader. Having linked its fate with Ukraine at first, and then not bringing the matter to an end, America lost its place as a pillar and the main stronghold of the West, capable of guaranteeing allies protection and peace. Its hesitations last year and scattered arms supplies led to the disruption of the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive. This year, America's political dysfunction has delayed the provision of critical aid and raised doubts in American society about the urgent need to support Ukraine. America has failed the leadership exam, which will have serious consequences for global stability. It will be difficult for anyone who believes in the greatness of America to swallow this bitter pill.
Depending on who comes to power in Washington, this reputational disaster will either be downplayed as a regrettable necessity, or enthusiastically called a triumph of isolationism. But even in a world where "America first" needs those who will support it and cover its back. Will Europe stand with America in the impending geopolitical confrontation with China, which is now intensifying thanks to the natural resources and minerals given by Putin as collateral to President Xi? And will the Middle East meet halfway on the issue of oil prices?
Time will tell how serious the consequences for security and the economy will be. But one thing is already clear. A small armed conflict that began far from the American borders has transformed our world. And America's role in this world is no longer so significant.
