Researcher Emma Ashford: The Biden administration has adopted a cautious approach in dealing with the conflict
America is required to prepare the ground for ending the war in Ukraine through negotiations
The Russian war machine continues to bomb Ukrainian cities without any glimmer of hope that the war will end soon.
AFP
Biden did not propose a plan to end the war
Putin will not give up no matter the cost.
Reuters
picture
By late August, the West's interest in the Russian war in Ukraine had subsided.
The Russian and Ukrainian sides seemed to stumble into a long dead end, with Western leaders freed from the need to make tough decisions, or think very hard, about the future of this bloody conflict on Europe's doorstep.
Since early September, the Ukrainians have made significant gains, which were followed by Russian mobilization and annexation of Ukrainian regions to Russia, launching missile attacks on civilian areas, and threatening to use nuclear weapons, which shattered the illusion that Russia could be defeated militarily, and pushed the war to a new and more dangerous stage.
Emma Ashford, an American strategic analyst and researcher at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, believes that since the beginning of the war, the administration of US President Joe Biden has adopted a realistic and balanced political approach, as it arms and finances Ukraine, with continued assertion that the United States will not engage directly in conflict.
At the same time, the US administration avoids talking about one of the most important elements of the war strategy at all, which is how it can be ended.
American experts and policymakers who see the need for US support for diplomatic efforts to end the war through negotiations are treated as fools or traitors.
Not only that, but some argue that pushing Ukraine to accept a settlement of the war is immoral.
Negotiations
Ashford says in an analysis published by the American magazine "Foreign Affairs": "Almost all wars ended in negotiations.
At the same time, the Russian military escalation this fall is raising two specters: the first relates to the possibility of a wider war between Russia and NATO, and the second relates to the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons.
The economic cost to the world as a result of this conflict is already huge, and is sure to rise during the coming winter.
Even if ending the war through negotiations seems at the present moment impossible, the Biden administration must begin to ask the difficult questions, whether publicly or with its partners, that may entail walking the path of negotiations.
It must answer the question of when it is appropriate to push for negotiations, and the question of the point at which the costs of continuing the conflict will outweigh the benefits.
illusions of victory
For a lasting settlement to be reached, the US administration must figure out how to capitalize on Ukraine's successes without setting the stage for further conflict.
To be prepared to reach the best agreement on American policy makers maintain the united front between the West and Ukraine, while taking into account Russian and Ukrainian domestic policies, and be flexible and realistic in determining which sanctions can be lifted on Russia, without this strengthening the strength of the regime of President Vladimir Putin.
If the US administration does not prepare for this immediately, it may find that dangerous illusions of absolute victory dominate its cautious approach to the war.
Eight months after the start of the Russian war on Ukraine, US support for Ukraine allowed large areas of Russian-held territory to be retaken, inflicting heavy losses on Russian forces, while keeping the risks of conflict spillover relatively low.
The US administration avoids talking about the expected developments of the conflict, saying that it is up to the Ukrainians to decide what they see in their best interests.
But maintaining this position has become more difficult with the Russian president escalating the war, and brandishing the use of nuclear weapons against the West.
Putin chose to take big new risks rather than retreat, indicating that this war would not end with easy Russian capitulation.
Although these risks remain under control, there may come a time when negotiations are inevitable to avert a massive catastrophe.
At the same time, the economic consequences of the war are growing rapidly.
In Ukraine, public finances are on the verge of collapse, and the state has run out of cash.
As the economic historian Adam Tuz said last September: "If Ukraine's allies do not ramp up their financial aid, it would be very natural for a political and social crisis to erupt on the Ukrainian home front."
dilemma
At the same time, Europe finds itself mired in its crisis as energy prices soar to record levels, driving up inflation and raising the prospect of a severe economic recession.
All this makes it difficult to defend the position of the US administration that "only Kyiv will decide when the war will end."
In fact, the question is not whether negotiations are necessary to end the war, but rather when and how these negotiations should begin.
Policy makers must deal with the “Catch 22” dilemma, which refers to the contradiction of conditions in a particular situation, according to the American novelist, Joseph Heller, in the novel of the same title published in 1961.
This dilemma says that “the better the performance of the Ukrainian forces on the battlefield, the more difficult it will be to persuade Ukraine to sit at the negotiating table, even though it is better for it to enter the negotiations while it is in a good military position.”
As the dangers of Russian escalation increase, so does the possibility that any Western leader who talks about ending the war will be accused of being unrealistic, immoral, or succumbing to "nuclear blackmail."
But internal discussions about the terms of the settlement that are now acceptable, will be a better position for all parties, when the opportunity to reach any peace agreement appears.
Since the beginning of the war, the Biden administration has adopted a realistic and balanced political approach, arming and financing Ukraine, while still asserting that America will not be directly involved in the conflict. But she avoids talking about one of the most important elements of a war strategy, which is how it might be ended.
Since early September, the Ukrainians have made significant gains, followed by Russian mobilization and annexation of Ukrainian regions to Russia, missile attacks on civilian areas, and the threat of nuclear weapons, shattering the illusion that Russia could be defeated militarily.
Europe finds itself mired in its crisis as energy prices soar to record levels, driving up inflation and raising the prospect of a severe economic recession.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news