The war will probably go on for some time
The conflict in Ukraine should focus on the interest of Kyiv, not Washington
Two Ukrainian women pass by a shopping center destroyed by the Russian bombing of the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv.
Reuters
Biden does not know where to lead the war in Ukraine.
dad
Putin is determined to keep fighting.
dad
Zelensky will not make the concessions that Russia wants.
dad
picture
From the first moments of the Russian war on Ukraine, the United States’ intervention in this war in one way or another was very clear, whether with declared statements of support for Kyiv, or by providing material and military support to it, but does this serve more, the interest of Ukraine or the United States itself?
This question was attempted by the Danish researcher, Jürgen Orstrom Müller, to provide an answer to it in a report published by the American magazine "National Interest".
Judging by his recent statements, it appears that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is looking for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, Mueller said.
However, given that the United States plays a critical role in the conflict, Washington has sufficient leverage to determine when and how Ukraine will enter the peace negotiations.
But Washington's goals behind this conflict are far from clear.
It's not like that
Most observers initially believed that the United States intervened with military assistance to defend Ukraine, expel Russia, and prevent a Russian victory.
Now it seems that this is not the case.
During a meeting in Kyiv with Zelensky on April 25, 2022, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stated that he hoped the Russian loss in Ukraine would deter its leadership from repeating its aggressive actions elsewhere.
Mueller adds that the US strategy thus appears to be aimed at using the Russian attack as an opportunity to achieve an American geopolitical goal of completely weakening Russia.
This is an entirely different goal, and one wonders how Ukrainians feel about it.
Such a goal would involve a war of attrition, with heavy casualties to be borne by the Ukrainians, not the Americans.
Mueller believes that Austin's statement is not conducive to negotiations to end the conflict.
Conversely, Russian President Vladimir Putin could use this to consolidate his power in the face of opposition from potentially dissatisfied Russian military and security forces.
For example, some Russian elites may want to change their tactics or even oppose Putin, we don't know about this, but if their only outcome is a much weaker motherland, why should they do it?
Any opposition will be described as non-national.
For the United States, it would be wise to say that while Russia should withdraw from Ukraine, the end of the war would provide Moscow with an opportunity to join the international community.
Some Russians may not have forgotten that from 1997 to 2014, the G7 was in fact the G8 (because Russia was a member).
They should be reminded that it was not Russia, but the current Russian policy, that led to this rupture.
Drawing on two lessons from history, former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt made a statement in 1943 declaring that the objectives of the Allied war were to force Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan into unconditional surrender.
Knowing how evil Nazism was, Muller says, there were good reasons for this goal, but he helped Adolf Hitler rally the German nation behind him.
Why should the Germans try to end the war knowing they would surrender themselves to the mercy of the Allies, or the demise of Nazism?
We now know that for the Japanese, the emperor played a decisive role, and it is uncertain what would have happened, even after the two nuclear bombs, had the Americans not acquiesced to keep the emperor.
Therefore, in the face of Japan, unconditional surrender was not applied very wisely.
Former President George HW Bush acted as a statesman during the campaign to liberate Kuwait in 1991. He formed a coalition within the framework of the United Nations with the goal of liberating Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion (the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 678/1990).
When this goal was achieved, he rejected all advice and ideas for moving forward, engineering regime change in Iraq.
The real art of statecraft, which should not be forgotten in Ukraine, is knowing when and how to stop.
Unwise position
Equally unwise is Henry Kissinger's statement on 24 May 2022 before a meeting in Davos that "ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante".
Apparently, the implication is that the war should end with Russia taking control of the territories in Donbass, which it occupied before February 24, 2022.
Few negotiations have resulted in a mutually acceptable position if, even before the two opposing sides have sat down, one side makes major concessions.
Russia and Putin will know that they have already acquired the territories occupied before the war and will therefore begin to demand more, perhaps a large part of southern Ukraine on the Black Sea coast, in addition to recognizing the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
In such a scenario, Zelensky would begin to learn that the United States, if the administration of President Joe Biden had followed Kissinger's advice, had already given Russia a large part of his country.
How can he then extricate himself from negotiations with an outcome that his people can live with, after such an impassioned defense?
Concessions should only be made if they seem likely to end the conflict with an acceptable outcome.
Therefore, Zelensky is absolutely correct in repeatedly saying that his goal is to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea.
payment
Only this position can guarantee that negotiations begin from an equitable position.
Negotiations may end with territorial concessions from Ukraine, but if so, they will be decided on the basis of what Ukrainians feel and agree with.
This is the essence of the negotiations and should not be given to Russia in advance because Russia must pay the price for any concessions Ukraine puts on the table.
If not, only one side of the table is negotiating.
Mueller argues that negotiations to resolve conflicts that are somewhat similar to what we saw in Ukraine do not begin before one of the two conditions is met: either one side admits defeat, or both sides are too exhausted, and find that the cost of continuing the war outweighs any unpalatable concessions that must be made. submit it.
Neither of these conditions appears to be met at the present time, which means that the war will likely continue for some time.
The United States and Europe must ensure that Ukraine remains resilient to Russian aggression.
Otherwise, the outcome will be shaped by unbalanced negotiations, with Russia in the driving seat.
Finally, Mueller says, the United States must resist the temptation to turn the conflict from being over Ukraine and its sovereignty to a geopolitical issue used to advance American goals.
The conflict in Ukraine must remain focused on what is in Ukraine's interest, not America's.
America plays a critical role in the conflict, and Washington has enough leverage to determine when and how Ukraine will enter the peace negotiations. But the administration's goals behind this conflict are far from clear.
Russia must pay for any concessions that Ukraine puts on the table. If not, only one side of the table is negotiating.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news