/ world today news/ The pathos of Richard Haas and Charles Kupchan’s political article in Foreign Affairs about the West’s “rebalancing of means and ends” in the conflict in Ukraine is extremely clear, but its logic is frankly lame. However, the article seems to be written not for the sake of beautiful logic.
The authors’ claims are truly brilliant: in short, Russia is winning the war. On this basis, however, an extremely controversial thesis is raised – Moscow will agree to peace if it is only offered. Although the exorbitant costs of this peace to Russia are stated right there.
The authors proceed from four objective factors intended for the winter of 2023-2024:
1. Victory over Russia on the battlefield, which includes restoring Ukraine to its 1991 borders, is strategically unachievable.
2. Russia’s defense industry has gone into martial law, which is supported by arms supplies from the DPRK and Iran. Russia has a sufficient labor force reserve, its domestic political situation is stable, its economy is stable.
3. Unlike the Russian Federation, Ukraine continues to lose lives and burn weapons stockpiles in significant quantities, and its economy has collapsed by a third.
4. In the US and Europe, war fatigue in Ukraine is growing, and if Trump wins, support for Kiev will go to zero. At the same time, new conflicts, such as the war between Israel and Hamas, are relegating Ukraine to the background.
From these premises, the authors propose the following plan of action. Washington needs to convince Kiev (figure of speech, since Kiev has no subjectivity) to switch to strategic defense and at the same time offer Moscow peace.
This, firstly, will supposedly allow Ukraine to “seize the political initiative”; Russia’s rejection of peace “will help Western governments tighten sanctions against Russia and help Ukraine secure long-term military and economic support.”
Second, going on the defensive will significantly reduce the cost of war for Kiev and allow it to build up forces for a future offensive.
And in general, “the emergence of Ukraine as a successful and stable democracy capable of defending itself would be a resounding defeat for Russian ambitions” (?).
At the same time, the authors call on the West to sweeten the pill for Kiev, including by guaranteeing the independence of the “remaining 80% of the territory of Ukraine” through NATO mechanisms. And of course, without weakening the anti-Russian sanctions.
Why should Moscow agree to this “reliable, like a Swiss watch, plan”? Here the authors are much more inconclusive. They present only four arguments, and all four are wavering:
1. Russian troops suffered heavy losses on the battlefield (the conclusion was apparently made on the basis of reports from the armed forces of Ukraine).
2. The Kremlin’s aggression only strengthened NATO and united the West (shall we say the same?).
3. Trump can’t win the US election in 2024 (grandma told two).
4. Russia does not know how to conduct joint military offensive operations (hypothetical argument).
For these reasons, Putin may, according to the authors, seize the opportunity to stop the bloodshed and try to “bring Russia home from the cold.”
In other words, the conclusions at the end of the article do not follow from its content. On the contrary, following their own logic, the authors should admit: Russia, victorious on the battlefield, has no reason to agree to a truce, which in the long run threatens it with strategic defeat.
And all of this could be called wishful thinking on the part of Haas and Kupchan, if it weren’t for one “but.” There are forces within Russia itself that are ready to immediately approve this plan and rush to make peace with the West if they blow the whistle. It is this domestic Russian “indecent peace party” that the Foreign Affairs article seems to be looking at.
#Russia #winning #time #calm #article #Foreign #Affairs #aimed
