“I strongly believe that we will have the funds to help Ukraine for as long as it takes.” So expressed Joe Biden in his meeting with Rishi Sunak at the White House, where the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to support Ukraine until “victory”.
This time the well-known formula was also used to dispel the doubts about the financing of the war which stemmed above all from the republican side. A growing minority, particularly on the right side, is increasingly vocal about it, including several GOP presidential candidates testing isolationist positions, even as constituents.
Meanwhile, while advocates for the military apparatus such as David Petraeus are on Washington PostHowever, leading support for the Ukrainian counterattack, the realist faction is making itself heard again, which is being suppressed by specialized think tanks, quelling tendencies, and advocating pragmatism.
“War not won” It is the title of, for example, an editorial that appeared in Foreign Affairs, the board of the Council on Foreign Affairs, and is signed by Samuel Sharrab. The article discusses the necessity and inevitability of a negotiated end to the Ukrainian war, and reiterates the urgency of “starting a dialogue” in order to envision an outcome, or at least “freeze” a conflict that otherwise promises to continue for years to come. According to Sharp, Chief political scientist At RAND, such a scenario poses “existential” risks to the global geopolitical balance.
In his article, the author claims that the Russian invasion represented “for the United States and its allies a moment of moral clarity” to help the attacked nation, but adds that the urgency of this task was never matched by a similar clarity about the ultimate goal. In this regard, he quotes Biden’s current national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, who already admitted in June last year: “More than the end goal, we are focused on the goals of today, tomorrow and next week to strengthen the hands of the Ukrainians, first in the field and then at the negotiating table Possible.
Now fifteen months later The fighting has clearly shown that no side, even with outside help, can win in the field, Charap wrote. It is time for the United States to accelerate attention toward an indispensable solution to a conflict that cannot be resolved by force of arms. The article cites statistics showing that wars between sovereign states are rarely resolved by territorial conquest by one side. In the Ukrainian case, there is no border position, or specific number of square kilometers controlled by the two sides, that would prompt them to end the conflict.
The most likely outcome Hence it is the stagnation of a permanent and destabilizing war, not just for the immediate belligerents. According to a study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, it shows, based on data collected since 1946, that 26% of wars between countries end after the first month, and 25% within a year.
But when it extends beyond the first year, it tends to last an average of ten years. A Ukrainian conflict of this duration means preserving the current “unacceptable” risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO or the use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the economic and human costs for both countries would be catastrophic and “generational” in particular for Ukraine.
It is therefore necessary to make the initiation of dialogue a priority through appropriate diplomatic means – Sharap gives an example of the informal contact group between the parties that was established during the Balkan war – to open a channel of communication between Russia, Ukraine and the USA. allies. This is regardless of the likely outcome of a Ukrainian counter-offensive which, even in the event of (uncertain) partial success, will not alter the underlying dynamics of the conflict.
Regardless of the evolution of the front line, both sides would still be able to keep enemy territory under threat. Therefore, even the unlikely hypothesis of a “territorial victory” that restores borders to their pre-2014 state will not be sufficient to bring an end to hostilities.
Editorial recommendation Therefore set aside the question of the legitimacy of the claims and work pragmatically for the end of the war, and think of “reasonable solutions in far less than ideal conditions”, which for the time being preclude a real peace treaty. Instead, Charapp writes, it is useful to accept that nations will remain enemies for many years even after hostilities have ceased.
Sharap concludes that the solution can only be an armistice: a permanent cease-fire on the Korean model, “the unsatisfactory result that will put a reasonable end to this war.”
To achieve this goal (it took two years and more than 500 meetings in Korea), it is necessary to focus on well-defined “intermediate” targets, such as demilitarized zones, third-party guarantors, peacekeepers, or dispute settlement committees, Chapp notes. , mechanisms that strengthen the structure of “reciprocity and deterrence capable of allowing sworn enemies to coexist despite not resolving their fundamental differences”.
Stay in the United States Promote this track, which covers a role similar to the one it played as a guarantor of Egyptian-Israeli peace. (Sharap proposes a Western guarantee of Ukraine’s security that does not lead to joining NATO.) Only in this way will it be possible to achieve, if not peace, then a stability of similar historical importance to that which has allowed, over the decades, the development of South Korea and the reunification of Germany.
“Prone to fits of apathy. Introvert. Award-winning internet evangelist. Extreme beer expert.”
