History reveals that wars are not always predictable, as they may follow predictable paths, and may go in unexpected directions, and the Ukraine war does not seem to be an exception to this rule.
This is what Thomas Friedman, a veteran New York Times writer, sees in an article that began with the surprising fact that Americans who do not seem to agree at the moment on anything;
The majority of them have consistently demonstrated that they support "the provision of generous economic and military aid to Ukraine in its war against (Russian President) Vladimir Putin's attempt to wipe it off the map."
This is doubly surprising, according to the writer, especially since "most Americans did not know the location of Ukraine on the map only a few months ago, because it is a country with which we did not have a special relationship before."
But the writer believes that the most important thing is for this support to continue during this summer, in which Ukraine will be the scene of a “sumo duel” between two giant wrestlers trying to throw the other out of the ring, and neither of them is ready to withdraw even when he is unable to win.
While Friedman expected that support to erode somewhat as people realize the war's role in driving up global energy and food prices, he showed that he still hoped that the majority of Americans would stay on the side of the Ukraine war so that the country could regain its militarily sovereignty or conclude a deal. A decent peace agreement with Putin, as he put it.
Friedman pointed out that his optimism for the continuation of that support in the near term does not stem from reading opinion polls, but from reading history, and in particular, Michael Mandelbaum's new book, "The Four Ages of American Foreign Policy: Weak Power, Great Power, Great Power, and Unruly Power." .
While the US positions on Ukraine may seem completely unexpected and new, Mandelbaum believes that they are not, citing positions that have swept US foreign policy since its inception.
According to the author, Mandelbalm confirms that America's foreign policy has oscillated throughout the history of this country between two broad approaches, one focusing on strength, national interest and security, which is the approach of former President Theodore Roosevelt, and the second on promoting American values and consistent with the approach of former President Woodrow Wilson.
These two approaches appear to be competing in many cases, according to Friedman, but this was not always the case, as “when there is a foreign policy challenge that puts our interests and values on the line, we may reach the ideal point, with broad, deep and lasting popular support.” as he put it.
Mandelbalm sees in his book, which was published at the beginning of June, that it was this continuous popular support that prevailed in the United States throughout the Second World War as well as the Cold War, expecting that this will be the case for the Ukraine war.
war tracks
But the big question - according to Friedman - is how long this support will last?, and the answer is "no one knows, because wars follow expected and unexpected paths."
What is to be expected in the Ukraine war is that “as costs rise, opposition to the war will increase either in America or among our European allies, arguing that our interests and values are out of balance in Ukraine.”
He pointed out that there are those who will argue that the country cannot economically support Ukraine to the point of complete victory, that is, expel Putin's army from every inch of Ukraine, and that it is strategically not able to seek complete victory, because Putin, in the face of a resounding defeat, can resort to nuclear weapons.
Some indications are emerging, such as French President Emmanuel Macron's statement that the Western alliance should not "humiliate Russia", Friedman said, which sparked huge anger among Ukrainians.
But Mandelbalm said in his book that all wars throughout American history have met with some opposition, including the Revolutionary War, when opponents moved to Canada.
The writer stressed that what distinguished the American presidents who ruled during periods of war was their ability to keep the country committed to winning the war, despite the opposition.
Friedman said that the challenge facing current US President Joe Biden - especially in the absence of a consensus among the allies or with Ukraine on the form of "victory" - is whether the solution is to restore Kyiv all of its lands, or accept to give up some of them?
Has Putin decided that he never wants any compromise, and instead wants Ukraine to endure a slow and painful death?
As for what cannot be expected about this war, it is - according to Friedman - that after 100 days of its outbreak there is no end in sight, as it "started in Putin's head, and is likely to end only when Putin says he wants it to end... But Great wars have strange phases, whichever way they start can end in totally unexpected ways," according to Friedman.
For example, says Friedman, the Ukraine war has already forced every country and company to develop their own plans to use clean energy, and if this war does not inadvertently blow up the planet, it may inadvertently help sustain it. Over time, Putin's primary source of money and power will diminish.