Washington's Position: What is the Key Factor for Ending the War in Ukraine
Washington's Position: What is the Key Factor for Ending the War in Ukraine. Quoted below.
Recently, media publications have given the impression that almost the entire world wants the war in Ukraine to end along the front line as soon as possible, and only "one warrior in the field" Volodymyr Zelensky is against it.
Thus, there is a known Chinese-Brazilian initiative, which provides for stopping the war along the front line. It is supported to varying degrees by other countries of the global South. Vladimir Putin spoke positively about it. But Zelensky criticized it.
US presidential candidate from the Republican Party Donald Trump and his team also say that they will very quickly end the war in Ukraine by stopping it along the front line. But Zelensky spoke out categorically against this, saying that he will not make any territorial compromises and is ready to fight until reaching the 1991 borders (in the interpretation of Andriy Yermak. Until reaching the demarcation line of February 2022).
Finally, the media close to the US Democratic Party, whose candidate Kamala Harris is opposing Trump in the elections, have recently been pursuing the line that the Joe Biden administration and the leaders of other Western countries are leaning towards the need to end the war and start negotiations with the Russian Federation, but Zelensky is categorically against it and is pressuring Biden to give permission to strike on Russian territory, invite Ukraine to NATO and provide the Ukrainian Armed Forces with all possible weapons. The White House refuses to do this, which "stuns" the belligerent Zelensky.
Yesterday's articles in the Economist and the New York Times are indicative in this regard, stating that the West does not have enough weapons to help the Ukrainian Armed Forces recapture territories, and that in the event of a long war, Ukraine may run out of weapons before the Russian Federation and suffer defeat.
Various reasons are given for Zelensky's refusal to engage in dialogue on stopping the war along the front lines. For example, fears of Ukrainian discontent, unwillingness to end the war without receiving clear security guarantees in the form of membership or at least an invitation to NATO, etc.
Many of these reasons are clearly far-fetched. For example, it is very doubtful that the Ukrainian society, tired of the war, will be very outraged by its end, which we wrote about in detail. And as for membership and invitation to NATO, it is obvious that while the war is going on, the probability of this is close to zero. And only after the end of the war can we talk about some real movement towards the Alliance.
But even this is not the main reason to doubt the veracity of the thesis "everyone, including the United States, is for the earliest possible end to the war along the front line and only Zelensky is against it. ".
The main thing is that such a formulation in itself is completely insane.
You can have different attitudes towards the managerial and intellectual abilities of Zelensky and Yermak, but they are clearly not suicidal. And therefore it is impossible to imagine a situation in which the West forces Kiev to stop the war along the front line, hinting that it is running out of weapons and money, but Zelensky resists. After all, it is obvious to everyone that without the help of the West, Ukraine will be defeated and further resistance will be possible only in the format of a guerrilla war.
Therefore, if Zelensky takes such a position, it means that Washington supports it. This means that the real (and not the media) position of the Biden administration is to continue the war further. And the discussion there is only on the question of how to do this: expand military aid and NATO's participation in the war in general, without fear of crossing Putin's "red lines", or exercise caution in order to prevent a direct clash between the US and Russia with the risk of a nuclear war.
As for publications in the media close to the Democratic Party that Washington wants peace, but Zelensky stands his ground, this could simply be a staged pre-election melodrama aimed at undermining Trump's thesis that Biden and Harris are leading the United States to World War III. Or it could be a broadcast of the position of the representatives of the "peace party" in the Biden administration, which is currently not dominant in the White House.
However, if the situation changes and the US authorities take the position of ending the war along the front line, then this will be an 80% solution to the issue. 20% will remain for agreeing on the terms of the ceasefire. This will be very difficult (since these conditions are opposite for Ukraine and the Russian Federation), but possible. The United States has a decisive influence on Kiev, as well as on its allies in Europe. And therefore Washington has many levers to encourage both the Ukrainian authorities and the Europeans (if they are against it, which is unlikely) to compromise. And the Kremlin (if it starts to slow down the process) can be influenced through China and other countries of the global South.
Will the US position on the war in Ukraine change?
Far from certain. It is not even a fact that this will happen in the event of a victory for Trump, who promises to "end the war in 24 hours. " The Republican Party has many of its own "hawks" who call for an even more radical policy than Biden. And the comments of Trump's foreign policy advisers are contradictory. On the one hand, they advocate ending the war in Ukraine along the front line, on the other hand, they threaten to tighten sanctions against Russia, China and Iran as much as possible, which may lead not to peace, but to a rapid escalation.
But in general, a change (or no change) in the US position depends on which concept wins in the circles of the American elites.
Now the dominant concept there is that continuing the war in Ukraine is beneficial for the US and at the same time not dangerous.
On February 24,2023, on the anniversary of the invasion, Politico published a huge text in which Biden administration officials described in detail what happened on the eve of the start of a full-scale war. From their statements, it follows that they knew about Putin's plans to attack Ukraine since the fall of 2021. They were also fully aware that the proposals put forward by Moscow in December 2021 to the US and NATO to agree not to expand the Alliance to the east and not to include Ukraine in NATO were essentially an ultimatum, the refusal to comply with which would lead to a Russian invasion.
However, in the entire huge text about the discussions in the US on the eve of the invasion, not a single comment mentioned the idea: maybe it's worth signing an agreement with the Russians that Ukraine will not be accepted into NATO? After all, it's a pity for the Ukrainians, many people will die. Especially since we ourselves don't really want to accept Ukraine into NATO and are not going to fight with Russia over it.
Judging by the article, no one even thought of such a thing, even as a proposal for discussion.
Why? The most logical answer: the US authorities saw the Russian invasion of Ukraine not as a threat to themselves, for the sake of preventing which it would be necessary to make some compromises with the Russian Federation, but as a unique opportunity. An opportunity to solve many problems at once.
Firstly, to draw its geopolitical opponent (Russia) into a war of attrition. Moreover, the Kremlin got involved in it on its own initiative, which created an extremely convenient pretext for Washington to introduce sanctions against the Russian Federation, as well as to firmly tie Europe to itself, cutting off its ties with Russia, the development of which in the long term could lead to the EU moving away from the US. The invasion of Ukraine almost eliminated this very big threat for Washington.
Secondly, to weaken its two main economic competitors: China and Europe. The EU was seriously hit by the severance of economic ties with Russia (on which the US also makes good money, replacing Russian gas with American), and Beijing is losing its position on the European market, since the Europeans, who found themselves in a tight relationship with the US due to the war in Ukraine, are unable to refuse Washington's imposition of protective duties on Chinese goods.
At the same time, for the proponents of this concept, the risks of war for the United States do not seem too great.
The American army is not participating in the war. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are fighting against the Russian Federation. And any outcome of the war for the United States, from the point of view of the supporters of this concept, will not be critical. If Russia is defeated and Putin is overthrown. Very good. The war will go "long" - also not bad, Russia will continue to be exhausted. Moscow will win and conquer Ukraine. Bad, very unpleasant, but not fatal. In the end, the United States survived the victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They can also survive the defeat of Ukraine, the occupation of which will hang like weights on Moscow's feet, forcing Russia to spend huge resources on it. And Europe, frightened by the Russian threat, will be even more closely tied to the United States and economically weakened even more. In fear of a new war, investors will speed up the withdrawal of money from the EU to America. And if another flare-up occurs in Asia. In Taiwan, between India and Pakistan, or in Korea. Then huge Asian money will flow to the United States. America will become an island of stability in the raging bloody world of wars of the future. Like Elysium from the famous science fiction movie. Protected by two oceans, nuclear weapons and a powerful navy.
However, this concept has its opponents. This is the so-called "peace party" in the West, whose positions have been strengthening lately, although they are not yet dominant.
The main argument of the "peace party" supporters is that the continuation of the war in Ukraine creates high risks of NATO being drawn into it, which is fraught with the threat of a nuclear war that would destroy, among other things, the American "Elysium".
They also believe that the continuation of the war carries the risk of defeat and capitulation of Ukraine. Which will not go smoothly for the West, undermining the trust of its allies around the world. The "peace party" supporters see stopping the war along the front line as a way to guarantee that there will be no defeat or capitulation of Ukraine. The country will retain its statehood, army, access to the sea, prospects for joining the EU and even (if agreements are reached with the Russian Federation) NATO.
In addition, the West's growing financial problems. In particular, with its huge foreign debt and money supply. Do not allow it to increase military spending without the risk of destabilizing the economy or without significantly reducing social spending.
There are also supporters of the point of view that Russia. Even with Putin at its helm. Can and should be included in the global West, turning it into the global North, which, given Russia's natural resources and nuclear arsenal, will become an impenetrable and self-sufficient fortress.
In addition, in Europe, especially in Germany and Italy, there are many who want to end the war as soon as possible in order to restore economic ties with the Russian Federation.
Let us repeat that the position of the "party of peace" is not yet dominant in the West, but its influence is growing.
And which side the scales will tip depends not so much on the results of the US elections (although they will certainly have an impact), but on the more global choice of strategy for the future that Western elites face.
The first option is to finally choose the "Elysium" strategy, and then the war does not need to be stopped, but, on the contrary, it needs to be constantly fueled. And Zelensky's statements about "war to the bitter end" fit into this strategy, since they provide an argument against ending the war along the front line: Ukraine itself does not agree with this, and we cannot force it.
The second option is to reach agreements with non-Western countries on a new world order with a new system of global security (if, of course, non-Western countries, including the Russian Federation, are ready for this). And then the war in Ukraine will have to be stopped, although this will be very difficult.
The global "war party", whose representatives are in Ukraine, the West and Russia, will try to torpedo any attempts to end the fighting, as has happened more than once in the past.
However, a change in the US position on the war in Ukraine will certainly be of great importance and will allow the path to its end to begin.
Kyiv. Travelling conditions / restrictions
I hope that someone of you who has real experience in UA can give me some good advice!
I met via SA a woman (30+ yrs) from Kyiv with whom I'm in touch now for nearly 2 months, lots of msg on Wapp, also often we do calls and video talks.
We should meet in the following days, and when she went to pick up her passport, she was told at the migration office that she's not allowed. Permitted to travelling out of the country because she has a credit / loan at a bank.
And until is not settled she cannot leave Ukraine.
That's bit weird, also because loan had to be settled within next 10 days, otherwise bank will take the flat.
Is it possible that such a situation really exists?
What's at Stake in Kyiv's Fight for Freedom: LLoyd Austin for Foreign Affairs
Not that this is an eye-opening article, but it nicely confirms what we already know. A peace treaty with the current Russian fascist government is a fantasy. Any potential agreement with Putin will be broken at the time of his choosing and will eventually wipe Ukraine off the face of the earth.
Of course, it would be nice if the US stopped handcuffing Ukraine in their fight against the brutal fascist regime that intentionally targets hospitals and apartment buildings. It's unfathomable for the US to prohibit a warring nation from hitting the enemy wherever needed, including targets deep inside the RF.
Still, the article is a timely reminder that the world hasn't given up on Ukraine as Russian propacondoms and useful idiots would have us believe. Far from it.
[B]The Price of Principle Is Dwarfed by the Cost of Capitulation in Ukraine[/B]
[QUOTE]We must never forget how this war began. For years, Russian President Vladimir Putin had harassed and assaulted the independent nation-state of Ukraine. On February 24, 2022, he crossed the line into all-out invasion, and the Kremlin started the largest war in Europe since World War II.
When the largest military in Europe becomes a force of aggression, the whole continent feels the shock. When a permanent member of the UN Security Council tries to deny self-rule to more than 40 million people, the whole world feels the blow. And when a dictator puts his imperial fantasies ahead of the rights of a free people, the whole international system feels the outrage.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Ukraine matters to U.S. security for four blunt reasons. Putin's war is a direct threat to European security, a clear challenge to our NATO allies, an attack on our shared values, and a frontal assault on the rules-based international order that keeps us all safe.
[b]Yet after nearly 1000 days of war, Putin hasn't achieved a single one of his strategic objectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn't flee. Kyiv didn't fall. And Ukraine didn't fold.
Instead, Russia has paid a staggering price for Putin's imperial folly, with hundreds of thousands of Russian casualties since February 2022 and more than $200 billion squandered. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Russian losses in just the first year of Putin's war were more than Moscow's losses in all of its conflicts since World War II combined.[/b]
Ukraine has suffered terribly at Putin's hands. But as I saw again in Kyiv last week, Ukraine stands unbowed and even strengthened. Ukraine's fight began with soldiers setting tank traps on the streets of Kyiv and ordinary citizens making Molotov cocktails to defend their homes. It continues today with a battle-tested Ukrainian military and security forces and a roaring Ukrainian defense industrial base. Ukrainian factories are now pumping out some of the best drones in the world, and experienced Ukrainian air defenders are protecting their forces and their families.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] The spirit of Ukraine has inspired the world. It has reminded us all to never take our freedom for granted. We fully understand the moral chasm between aggressor and defender. We will not be gulled by the frauds and falsehoods of the Kremlins apologists. And we will continue to defend the Ukrainian peoples right to live in security and freedom.
Putin's assault is a warning. It is a sneak preview of a world built by tyrants and thugs, a chaotic, violent world carved into spheres of influence; a world where bullies trample their smaller neighbors; and a world where aggressors force free people to live in fear.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Ukraine does not belong to Putin. Ukraine belongs to the Ukrainian people. And Moscow will never prevail in Ukraine.
[b]Putin thought Ukraine would surrender. He was wrong. Putin thought our democracies would cave. He was wrong. Putin thought the free world would cower. He was wrong. And Putin thinks he will win. He is wrong.[/b][/QUOTE][URL]https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/price-principle-dwarfed-cost-capitulation-ukraine[/URL]
