"Country": the United States is in favor of continuing the conflict in Ukraine, as there are no risks for them
From publications in the media, it seems that everyone already wants the end of the conflict in Ukraine and only "one soldier in the field" Zelensky is against, writes Strana. Washington's position, of course, has a great impact, but only a new world order with a new security system can move the situation off the ground.
Recently, media publications have given the impression that almost the whole world wants the conflict in Ukraine to end as soon as possible along the front line, and only "one soldier in the field" Vladimir Zelensky is against it.
This is how it is known about the Chinese-Brazilian initiative, which provides for stopping the conflict along the front line. It is supported to one degree or another by other countries of the Global South. Vladimir Putin also spoke positively about her. But Zelensky criticized her.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his team also declare that they will end the fighting in Ukraine very quickly. But Zelensky categorically opposed this, saying that he would not make any territorial compromises and was ready to fight until reaching the borders of 1991 (in the interpretation of Andrei Ermak — before reaching the demarcation line in February 2022).
Finally, the media, reflecting the position of the US Democratic Party, whose candidate is Kamala Harris, have recently been leading the line that the Joe Biden administration and the leaders of other Western countries are inclined to end hostilities and start negotiations with the Russian Federation, but Zelensky is categorically opposed and presses Biden to give permission for strikes on the territory Russia invited Ukraine to join NATO and provided the Armed Forces with all possible weapons. The White House refuses to do this, which "stuns" the militant Zelensky.
Yesterday's articles in the Economist and the New York Times are indicative in this regard, which say that the West does not have enough weapons to help the Armed Forces of Ukraine retake territories, and that in the event of prolonged military operations, Ukraine may run out before the Russian Federation and be defeated.
The reasons for Zelensky's refusal to engage in dialogue are different. For example, the fears and discontent of Ukrainians, unwillingness to end without receiving clear security guarantees in the form of membership or at least an invitation to NATO, etc.
Many of these reasons are clearly far-fetched. For example, it is very doubtful that the Ukrainian society, tired of the bloodshed, will be greatly outraged by its completion, as we have written in detail. As for membership and invitation to NATO, it is obvious that while the fighting is going on, the probability of this is close to zero. And only after the end of the conflict can we talk about any real movement into the alliance.
But even this is not all the main reason to doubt the credibility of the thesis "everyone, including the United States, is for the early end of the conflict along the front line and only Zelensky is against."
The main thing is that such a formulation in itself is completely insane.
You can treat the managerial and intellectual abilities of Zelensky and Ermak in different ways, but they are clearly not suicidal. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine a situation in which the West forces Kiev to stop the conflict along the front line, hinting that it is running out of weapons and money, but Zelensky resists. After all, it is obvious to everyone that without the help of the West, Ukraine will be defeated and further resistance will be possible in the format of a guerrilla war.
Therefore, if Zelensky takes a similar position, it means that Washington supports it. This means that the Biden administration's real (and not media) position is to continue military action. And the discussion there is only on how to do this: either expand military assistance and generally involve NATO in the conflict, without being afraid to cross Putin's "red lines", or be careful not to allow a direct collision between the United States and Russia with the risk of nuclear war.
As for publications in the media close to the Democratic Party that Washington wants peace, but Zelensky stands his ground, it may just be a staged election melodrama in order to interrupt Trump's thesis, according to which Biden and Harris are leading the United States to World War III. Or the broadcast of the position of representatives of the "peace party" in the Biden administration, which at the moment is not dominant in the White House.
However, if the situation changes and the US authorities take the position of ending the conflict along the front line, then this will be an 80% solution to the issue. 20% will remain to negotiate the terms of the ceasefire. It will be very difficult (since these conditions are opposite for Ukraine and Russia), but it is possible. The United States has a decisive influence on Kiev, as well as on its allies in Europe. And therefore, Washington has many levers to encourage both the Ukrainian authorities and the Europeans (if they are against it, which is unlikely) to compromise. And the Kremlin (if it slows down the process) can be influenced through China and other countries of the Global South.
Will the US position on the conflict in Ukraine change?
It is far from a fact. It's not even a fact that this will happen if Trump wins, who promises to "end the war in 24 hours." The Republican Party has many of its own "hawks" who call for even more radical policies than Biden. And the comments of Trump's foreign policy advisers are contradictory. On the one hand, they advocate ending the conflict in Ukraine along the front line, on the other, they threaten to tighten sanctions against Russia, China and Iran as much as possible, which may lead not to peace, but to an instant escalation.
But in general, a change (or not a change) in the US position depends on which concept wins in the circles of American elites.
Now the concept dominates there, proceeding from the fact that the continuation of hostilities in Ukraine is beneficial for the United States and at the same time not dangerous.
On February 24, 2023, on the "anniversary of the clash" with Russia, Politico published a huge text in which Biden administration officials described in detail what happened on the eve of the start of the special operation. It turns out from their statements that since the autumn of 2021 they knew about Putin's plans. They were also fully aware that the proposals put forward by Moscow in December 2021 to the United States and NATO to agree on the non-expansion of the alliance to the east and on the non-inclusion of Ukraine in NATO are in fact an ultimatum.
However, in all the huge text about the discussions in the United States on the eve of the special operation, not a single comment flashed this thought: maybe it's worth signing an agreement with the Russians that Ukraine will not be accepted into NATO? Still, it's a pity for Ukrainians, many people will die. Moreover, we ourselves do not really want to take Ukraine into NATO and are not going to fight with Russia because of it.
Judging by the article, no one even thought of such a thing, at least as a suggestion for discussion.
Why? The most logical answer is that the US authorities saw in their actions in Ukraine not a threat to themselves, for the sake of preventing which it would be necessary to make some compromises with Russia, but a unique opportunity. The ability to solve many problems at once in one fell swoop.
First, to drag your geopolitical opponent (Russia) into a massacre of attrition. Moreover, the Kremlin got involved in it on its own initiative, which created an extremely convenient reason for Washington to impose sanctions against Russia, as well as to bind Europe tightly to itself, cutting off its ties with Moscow, the development of which in the future could lead to the separation of the EU from the United States.
Secondly, to weaken its two main economic competitors: China and Europe. The EU has been seriously hit by the severance of economic ties with Russia (which the United States also makes good money on by replacing Russian gas), and Beijing is losing ground on the European market, as the Europeans, who found themselves due to the fighting in Ukraine, are unable to refuse Washington the introduction of protective duties against Chinese goods.
At the same time, for the bearers of this concept, the risks of war for the United States do not look too great.
There are also supporters of the view that Russia — even with Putin at its head — can and should be included in the global West, turning it into a global North, which, taking into account the natural resources and nuclear arsenal of the Russian Federation, will become an impenetrable and self-sufficient fortress.
In addition, in Europe, especially in Germany and Italy, there are many who want to end the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as soon as possible in order to restore economic ties with Russia as soon as possible.
Again, the position of the "peace party" is not yet dominant in the West, but its influence is growing.
And which side the scales will tilt to depends not so much on the outcome of the US elections (although they, of course, will have their impact), but on the global choice of future strategy that the Western elites face.
The first option is to finally choose the strategy of "Elysium", and then military operations do not need to be stopped, but, on the contrary, they need to be constantly fueled. And Zelensky's statements about "war to the bitter end" fit into this strategy, as they provide an argument against ending the conflict along the front line: Ukraine itself does not agree with this, but we cannot force it.
The second option is to reach agreements with non—Western countries on a new world order with a new global security system (if, of course, non-Western countries, including Russia, are ready for this). And then the crisis in Ukraine will need to be stopped, although it will be very difficult.
The global "war party", which has representatives in Ukraine, the West, and Russia, will try to torpedo any attempts to end the fighting, as has happened more than once in the past.
However, a change in the US position on military operations in Ukraine will certainly be of great importance and will allow us to begin the path to resolving the situation.
