/ world today news/ In a recent article I wrote that the war in Ukraine is over, but no one knows how to end it. What I meant by this was that the general scheme of the military aspects of the war was complete and the conflict limited. The war was started by the Russians who wanted to take control of Ukraine to create a buffer zone to prevent the US and Ukraine from threatening Russia.
The United States intervened by sending weapons to Ukraine to block a Russian advance that could threaten NATO and Western Europe. The Ukrainians wanted to prevent the Russians from taking any territory from their homeland.
The war was part of a series of defensive moves by Russia, the United States and Ukraine, each more offensive and dangerous than the last. The Russian strike failed to break the Ukrainians and the Americans.
Their defensive capabilities combined with their fear of defeat blunted the Russian advance. The fear of the Russians prevented them from abandoning their constant efforts to destroy the defenses.
In my opinion, the Russians do not defeat their enemies. At the same time, the Ukrainians will not be able to defeat the Russians, in part because the improbability of success will limit any attack and because the United States, having succeeded in blocking threats to its interests, has little will to sustain the fight. This seems to force the end of the game on all sides, but the issue is more complicated.
Any settlement that did not result from the total defeat of one side would have to deal with the root cause of the war, which was Russia’s fear of future attack.
Russia would have to be driven to a deal both by the realization of the improbability of military success and by some reduction in its sense of vulnerability by annexing a significant part of Ukraine, but far from all of it.
The problem for Ukraine is that such an agreement could serve merely as an interlude until Russia renews its forces and resumes the offensive. Ukraine cannot be sure of US military support at a later date and will therefore face a difficult military situation.
In a war that ends without the total defeat of one side, the fear is that any agreement will simply be a prelude to renewed conflict and defeat along the way.
The Russian view would be that any land concession would be insufficient. Ukrainians fear that ceding land would make Russia much more dangerous, and Americans would fear endless war, causing internal resistance and vulnerability to other threats.
In considering what appears to be a hopeless situation, we must consider Russia’s non-military needs. The Soviet Union was impoverished and its military position was not as strong as many thought. His fall left Russia in a similar position.
There was no radical solution. Russia needs to remedy this situation at a time when its military weakness is even more evident.
For Russia, becoming an economically first-rate nation is fundamental. Using military force to achieve this has not worked.
The United States faces a choice between continued war or actual capitulation to Russia. Russia’s fear of attack coincides with the reality that the United States intends to cripple Russia economically.
In support of Ukraine, this is clearly Washington’s intention, but before the war, the US approach was more like indifference. After World War II, the United States took an almost economic route toward its former enemies.
Instead of breaking up the Japanese and German nations, which would have been quite rational, the United States undertook reconstruction programs allowing both Japan and West Germany to become leading world economic powers.
Americans learned from the treatment of Germany after World War I that trying to crush a nation could cost the United States and the world dearly, while rehabilitating the vanquished helped avoid wars of revenge while improving the global economic system.
It also opened the door to military and political alliances. West Germany joined NATO and Japan became a long-term American ally.
I have tried to show that the war is over – in the sense that no one is able to achieve their goal – but that a peace settlement that is maintained is extremely difficult.
If the United States follows the model of World War II, in which, instead of demanding capitulation, which is impossible for Moscow, it focuses on a relationship based on rebuilding rather than destroying Russia, it may withdraw from war. which is over while the Russians can pursue their economic interests: developing an economy that places them in the forefront of nations.
Russia is full of valuable natural resources, a workforce that requires training, and an industrial enterprise that needs reconstruction. This will not be a government project beyond some encouragement, but an investment opportunity. The US government did not create Toyota or Daimler-Benz. Strategy humanizes barbaric enemies.
I am by no means a pacifist, nor am I prone to heart-warming fantasies. What I am doing is confronting the fact that the United States is engaged in a war that will defy common sense because of the reasonable fears of all parties.
And I go back to the lessons of World War II and how the US treated its defeated enemies. Russia is not defeated and has the strength to continue the war even if it does not win.
It is not in America’s interest, but turning Russia from an uncertain enemy into an investment opportunity would be. And, of course, American troops will remain in Europe for the time being, if necessary.
There is nothing idealistic about that. That’s just the way American wars usually end. Therefore, it is conceived as a decision in the national interest. Whether it will be followed or whether anyone will agree is uncertain, but the question is: how many years is a stalemate war worth?
Translation: SM
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for our Telegram channel:
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages. In this way, we will overcome the limitations, and people will be able to reach the alternative point of view on the events!?
#George #Friedman #demand #Russias #capitulation
