/ world today news/ In anticipation of the Ukrainian offensive in the West, more and more are beginning to discuss what will happen after it – negotiations for a truce with Russia. Yes, the mainstream in the US – and partly in Europe – is practically confident in the success of the strike of the Ukrainian army prepared with their help, they only argue about its scale. Almost no one, even among the Anglo-Saxon hawks, believes in the imminent “liberation of Crimea”, but in any case they expect some kind of, albeit tactical, defeat of Russia. And then negotiations for a truce, which many Western analysts believe Moscow will be forced to agree to. Thus, the long-awaited Ukrainian offensive itself is viewed by Western strategists as a kind of form of “forcing Russia to peace”, that is, creating favorable conditions for Kiev and the West to start negotiations.
The recent article by Richard Haas and Charles Kupchan “The West needs a new strategy in Ukraine” in “Foreign Affairs” is very indicative in this sense. Haas is not an ordinary analyst, but the president of a key American think tank – the Council on International Relations, that is, his reasoning is not abstract, not even a recommendation, but an approximate plan of action for the American leadership.
The essence of the “Haas Plan” is that although Ukraine and the West as a whole are winning, the strategy must change. Yes, Haas supports calls for Kiev to be pumped with weapons, but he is sure that “the most likely outcome of the conflict is not a ‘total victory’ for Ukraine, but a bloody stalemate”, and therefore we must prepare for “after that, when the peak of hostilities passes at the end of the year, to withdraw Moscow and Kiev from the battlefield and sit down at the negotiating table. At the same time, Haas is one of those “hawks” who are not afraid of the escalation of the conflict – and in general, “the West must in every way belittle Russia’s nuclear ambitions.” Therefore, it is possible and necessary to pump weapons into Ukraine, and sooner or later Moscow will abandon the military solution.
The logic is murderous in the sense that it proceeds from the possibility of forcing Russia to come to terms with the force of Ukraine’s transition to the Atlantic camp. And from the fact that Russia can still be forced to negotiate about it. But now it’s not about that, it’s about why Haas is still proposing to change American strategy. Because Kyiv will also have to be forced to a truce! That is, to refuse his promises:
„Peace in Ukraine cannot be held hostage to Kiev’s military goals, which, however morally justified, are most likely unattainable…
Even from Ukraine’s point of view, it would be unwise to persist in achieving a complete military victory, which may turn out to be pyrrhic. Kyiv should not risk self-destruction in pursuit of unattainable goals.
When the season of hostilities is over, the US and Europe will also have good reason to abandon their stated policy of helping Ukraine as needed.
For more than a year, the West has allowed Kiev to determine the success of the Ukrainian campaign and set military goals for the US and Europe. That policy, whether it made sense at the start of the conflict, has now worn itself out.”
What happened, why do we need new supports? It turns out that the old policy “becomes unreasonable because Ukraine’s goals conflict with other interests of the West,” and continued large-scale support for Kyiv carries broader strategic risks.
What are these risks? According to Haas, the West cannot supply Ukraine with weapons at the same rate, it fears a direct conflict with Russia (this slightly contradicts the previous points of the article, but come on), and the US cannot continue to be so distracted by China’s containment. But there is also the risk of a split in the West and the fact that “U.S. policy toward Ukraine could change dramatically if Republicans win the White House in the 2024 election.“.
That is, the more globalist and Atlantic-minded Haas actually recognizes all the problems of the West, which the critics and opponents of the global Anglo-Saxon project talk about – and argues with them when he explains to Kiev the reasons for the change in American policy and the need for a truce and negotiations. But the problem is how the Americans will now convince Kiev – and what will it cost Zelensky?
Haas admits that “persuading Kiev to accept a ceasefire and vague diplomatic solutions may be no less difficult than getting Moscow to agree to it.”
The US, of course, will do everything possible to force Kiev to negotiate, but the main Ukrainian problem for the West now is that it is simply impossible for Zelensky to refuse the demand for the “1991 borders”. And if that happens, then it will be brought down by the warmongers to a defeated end. In a recently published interview, Anatol Lieven (a British analyst recently returned from Ukraine) claims this outright.
What’s going on? The current American strategy for Ukraine is based on the fact that it is necessary to help the VSU to inflict at least a relative defeat on Russia, and then enter into negotiations and fix a freeze, a new status quo: Russia gets what it already controls, and the rest of Ukraine actually becomes an unofficial member of NATO. Thus, Russia suffers a geopolitical defeat – it wanted to prevent the Atlanticization of Ukraine, but instead is forced to settle for a land corridor to Crimea, to accept Ukraine’s retreat to the West.
But within this strategy, the West has constantly publicly spoken of supporting plans to “liberate” the entire territory of Ukraine, while Zelensky builds everything on top of that. If now, without even a hint of Russia’s readiness to give up its goals, they begin to convince Kiev that it must accept the cessation of hostilities and actually give up the lost territories, it will lead to Zelensky’s political suicide. Well, if the West makes such proposals to Kiev after the Ukrainian offensive, then, as they say, there is a fork in the road – if he suddenly achieves some success, Zelensky will not agree, counting on more.. And if he does not succeed, then he will not he might even hint at a cease-fire without the risk of being shot down.
And it’s not about Zelensky. And the fact that the American approach was initially based on the mistaken belief that in the end they will be able to take Ukraine for themselves – and changing tactics and even strategy will not fix anything.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#impossible #Zelensky
