I recommend you read this “open letter for Ukraine and Russia” by Keith D. Dickson and Yurij Holowinsky at Small Wars Journal. I think it’s a pretty good summary of the U. S. position. Here’s the meat of the piece:
- Ukraine has become the strategic bulwark of the West. Ukraine’s ultimate survival and regeneration is now a priority for the long-term security of Europe.
- Any cease-fire or peace arrangement will only be temporary. There will be another war in three to five years. Putin will use this time to rearm and correct mistakes. The West must understand that this period represents strategic breathing space to prepare Ukraine to fight and win against another Russian assault employing economic, informational, military (land, air, and missile forces), and cyber capabilities. This means significant investment in airpower, ballistic missile defense, a fully equipped, NATO standard heavy division, several light infantry brigades, and a robust special operations capability.
- There is no formal NATO membership in Ukraine’s future. Instead, Ukraine becomes for all intents and purposes, a shadow member without Article V guarantees, but with all the benefits of NATO training and interoperability.
- Zelensky will have to accept territory lost to Russia is permanent, but it allows for a definable zone of separation and allows Putin to declare his pyrrhic victory.
- The West must look carefully at the leaders who will emerge after Zelensky. Ukraine’s shaky political history over the past 20 years is an essential factor to consider in this assessment.
- The post-war truce will require strong and visionary leadership to prepare the country for the next war, while building close ties with the EU and NATO as a shadow member. How the Western leaders guide this transition will determine the future of peace in Europe.
- Putin must be made to realize that Russia is trapped in a war that requires a demonstratable victory. Yet, this victory ultimately has no benefit. Putin’s goal of defeating the Ukrainian armed forces in open combat and occupying any more Ukrainian territory is a strategic impossibility and will result in disaster.
- The 1994 Trilateral Statement is dead. The nuclear weapons that Ukraine turned over to Russia most likely now threaten its existence. The security assurances agreed upon by Russia, the U.S., and Great Britain became null and void when Russia seized Crimea and the Donbas. Ukraine could assert that because it once was a nuclear power, it can become one again. This possibility should not be ruled out.
- Sanctions must remain in place as a guarantee of good faith in any negotiated outcome. If Russia shows an actual interest in long-term peace, the sanctions can be selectively lifted.
I think it makes a better case for ongoing support for Ukraine than most of the other statements I’ve read recently. It also has some significant internal contradictions, e.g. on the one hand it concedes that Russia has won but on the other it asserts an unsatisfied need for Putin to realize a “demonstrable victory”.
Is this the position of the US or the position of the Biden administration or the position of Ukraine. There’s a good chance the first point, “Ukraine has become the strategic bulwark of the West” is actualy not held by many in this country and perhaps not by incoming administration.
If the first statement is true; then why aren’t any NATO troops fighting in the frontline. The statement is also a predictor that NATO will be dying there soon, because as you’ve noted, Ukraine is running out of man to fight this war, and likely any future war with Russia in the next 20 years.
Its also why I’m skeptical the war will end this year. Russia has every incentive to keep destroying Ukraine (of men, of infrastructure) while it holds the upper hand and can delay Ukraine using peace to rebuild its strength by being a shadow member of NATO. Russia’s precondition for “peace” is likely that NATO countries banned from hosting Ukrainian military or vice versa.
Dickson and Holowinsky have absolutely NO understanding of what is happening nor how the war started nor Russia’s demands and goals. They are delusional, as is the entire US establishment. Just look at the insanity Gen. Keith Kellogg believes, Trump’s proposed representative to Putin.
1. The US started this war by overthrowing the legitimate, democratically elected Yanukovych, and installing the current Banderite/Nazi junta.
2. For 8 years the US supported the genocidal terror bombing of civilians in the Donbas by the US advised (and lead?) Ukrainian military. US and NATO military continue to select targets and program and launch missiles that are directed at civilian targets. The US’ Ukrainian cover story was blown a couple of years ago by German generals.
3. The US vetoed the 2022 Istanbul accords that would have ended the war and kept the Donbas in Ukraine, albeit with some autonomy, and the loss of Crimea. This was essentially the Minsk I and II agreements.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html
4. The war is not stalemated. Russia is slowly winning. There is no way to prevent a Russian victory other than nuclear war, which the lunatics in Washington might very well opt for.
5. Russia’s nonnegotiable demands are:
a. denazification, the current regime must be removed;
b. demilitarization, no heavy weapons, armor, rockets, jet aircraft…;
c. no NATO membership, and no foreign troops in Ukraine;
d. recognition of Russia’s territorial gains current and future.
The fact that war planning in Washington, London, Brussels and Paris proceeds without any consideration of Russian goals and demands is truly mind-boggling. Who are these neocon lunatics?
This war will continue until Ukraine is destroyed. It has already lost around 1/5 of its territory and half its population. Washington could not care less. Their delusions of empire are driving this war.
I wouldn’t say “delusional” but I think that “highly selective with the facts” is fair.
To the extent they have meaning at all in a bloody war, “winning” and “losing” are not zero sum. Putin/Russia have lost in the sense of not having achieved their initial war aims. Indeed, they will likely fall far short. Ukraine has also lost, in that they have not only failed to reach their maximal aim of regaining Crimea but they’re likely to lose additional terrority. So, lose-lose.
I disagree with the statement that if there is a ceasefire, the war will start back in 3-5 years. In the book The Fourth Turning by Neil Howe and William Strauss, they talk about how certain events are generational in their timeline. A lot will change in 5 years. Russia is already in sharp demographic decline. That plus the death of many of their younger men at the time the should be raising a family, will accelerate this decline. The generational shift will impact Russian Priorities. War may not be what they desire in 5 years.