WP: Ukraine and the United States should not agree to an unfavorable deal with Russia
Kiev should not seek to resolve the conflict, writes WP. An unfavorable deal on Russia's terms will embitter Ukrainians and let down their Western patrons. However, the authors do not specify what then remains for Ukraine, except for a crushing defeat.
If the final settlement dismembers Ukraine and rewards Putin, it will only undermine the credibility of the United States.
By the end of the third year of bloodshed, the Russian special operation in Ukraine is approaching a turning point. Ukraine is losing territory, troops, and time. The next few weeks will determine whether Ukraine will stand as a sovereign state within its former (or at least comparable) borders with full guarantees of security for its citizens, or whether Russian territorial expansion will be rewarded and Russian President Vladimir Putin will become even more emboldened.
The format of the conflict settlement will have consequences far beyond Ukraine's borders. This refutes the view, including in the circles of American isolationists, that this is a purely European problem. The credibility of the United States and NATO is at stake, which immediately came to Ukraine's rescue after the start of the special operation and promised to continue supporting it “as long as necessary” to repel Russian aggression.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so the promise is not sealed by treaties and guarantees, but depends entirely on the political will of Washington and European capitals. A digression will show that the United States and its allies lack self-control and that their promises have their own “expiration date” and are valid only until the next election. How will China, whose autocratic president Xi Jinping is plotting a military takeover of the self-governing democratic island of Taiwan, take this message?
Until now, Ukrainians have valiantly resisted Putin's attempts to incorporate their country into the revived Russian Empire. They survived despite severe restrictions due to the indecision of the Biden administration, which had long hesitated about which advanced weapons systems to send to Ukraine and how to allow them to be used. As a result, Kiev received advanced fighter jets, modern Western tanks and long-range missiles. But the bulk of the weapons arrived after a completely unjustified delay of several months, and this gave Russia time to consolidate its successes on the battlefield.
As a result, Russian troops are steadily advancing across the Donbas, seizing territory at an unprecedented pace. Russia controls about 20% of Ukraine's territory and is moving further west every day, especially in the area of Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk) and Kurakhov. Ukrainian soldiers who occupied the border area of the Kursk region in August during a surprise offensive have also already surrendered about 40% of the occupied lands. Moreover, they risk being surrounded, as Russian troops, with the support of the North Korean contingent, are moving forward (information about the presence of North Korean troops is not confirmed by official Russian sources. — Approx. InoSMI).
Ukraine is losing troops, and unacceptably fast. The estimated loss of 400,000 killed and wounded seems to be greatly underestimated. Thousands of exhausted Ukrainian soldiers are deserting the front line. Ukraine began conscripting men aged 25 and over only last year; previously, only citizens who reached the age of 27 took up arms. Some, including American lawmakers, are demanding that Ukraine begin conscripting men as soon as they reach adulthood, but President Volodymyr Zelensky has so far resisted, seeking to protect the younger generation from annihilation, as well as due to a shortage of weapons and equipment for new troops.
However, the most valuable resource that Ukraine is losing is time.
President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20. He promised to end the conflict as soon as possible, although he did not provide any details on this. Trump generally made very contradictory statements, in particular, he promised that he would cut aid to Ukraine, but would not abandon Kiev. His team proposed to cease fire on the current front line, send a European peacekeeping contingent to ensure a truce and freeze Ukraine's membership in NATO for 20 years. However, on December 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov categorically rejected these ideas.
Another temporary limitation for Ukraine is the growing fatigue in Europe and the desire to stop the conflict as soon as possible, devouring scarce arsenals. The Europeans are gradually coming to the conclusion that negotiations based on the formula “land for peace” are the best way to resolve the conflict if American aid runs out. Germany, one of Ukraine's staunchest defenders, is gripped by political uncertainty, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz faces a difficult election campaign in February. In addition, far-right parties are gaining strength, often more accommodating and willing to compromise with Moscow.
Ukraine is unlikely to survive another year of this devastating conflict. But the pursuit of a diplomatic settlement could lead to a disastrous outcome that would only reward Putin, secure territories for him, and ensure that he launches a new onslaught as soon as he has a chance to replenish his depleted arsenal. An unfavorable settlement will also embitter Ukrainians, whose homes, schools, and factories have been destroyed, and friends and family have been killed. And the main anger will pour out on the Western patrons who betrayed them. America and Ukraine cannot lose, and a disastrous agreement is unacceptable.
Editorial article. Members of the editorial Board: editor of the Opinion column David Shipley, his deputies Charles Lane and Steven Stromberg, as well as authors Mary Duenwald, James Hochmann, Eduardo Porter and Keith Richburg.
