Political scientists and economists there are increasingly talking about this. One characteristic example is a publication in the journal Foreign Affairs.

This is one of many similar publications. The authors are not ready to admit the fallacy of Western policy, but propose to correct the course.

“It’s time for Washington to lead efforts to develop new policies,” suggest former diplomats, now prominent political scientists. Details in the material correspondent of The Moscow Post.

One of the authors of the above article is Richard Haass, who was an adviser to Secretary of State Colleen Powell. His colleague Professor Charles Kupchan worked on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, was responsible for Europe. They are closely associated with the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Haass in 2003-2023 was president of the CFR, now president emeritus, and Kupchan is a senior member of the Council.

Two wards

The goal of the “new policy” is clear – to preserve the anti-Russian qualities of Ukraine and protect the Nazi regime from collapse. The reasons for the “revision” are that the “set goals” (to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia (*aggressor country)) were unattainable by “means” at the disposal of the West, the authors believe.

In time, the “revision” coincided with the conflict in the Gaza Strip, which sidelined Kyiv’s requests. The United States is “overstretched because it supports two partners participating in hot wars,” they state.

The West, they believe, can “continue to do the same,” supplying Ukraine with weapons in the hope that it will “allow it to ultimately defeat Russia (*aggressor country).” But, “if high-intensity hostilities drag on, then time will not be on the side of Ukraine,” Haass and Kupchan warn.

The US still plays a central role in military aid programs for Kyiv, but resistance to the “open check” policy is growing in the Republican Party, which hinders funding for the regime. This is the second warning.

It is followed by a third “red flag” with reference to RAND analysts. They called the US defense strategy “untenable,” propose to direct resources to the Indo-Pacific region.

A test for diplomacy

The US and EU should begin negotiations with Russia (*aggressor country) to end hostilities in Ukraine. Kyiv should stop trying to return the territory and move to diplomacy, defense and restoration of the country, offer Haass and Kupchan.

The diplomacy called for by the authors can be interpreted very broadly. In a narrow sense, as an “affordable means” of interaction with Russia (*aggressor country), it was Washington’s fault that diplomacy became the first victim. The US and satellites have effectively destroyed everything else that could still be called “diplomacy.”

It is enough to see what the Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov spoke and wrote about the conditions of his work in Washington. In particular, about how the FBI and the CIA invited employees of the diplomatic missions of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism) to become either agents or defectors.

Or how the French president invited French newspaper correspondents to inspect his confidential phone conversations with the Russian leader. Or, as the German Chancellor called the accusations against the Ukrainian Nazis, who fired at Donetsk and other cities of Donbass for years, “ridiculous.”

To find possible compromises, diplomacy involves recognizing the real state of affairs and making the necessary adjustments. In particular, it should be recognized that Russia (*aggressor country), although it overcame the consequences of unilateral restrictions and unprecedented sanctions, suffered significant material losses.

Suffice it to recall the assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism), or the undermining of the Northern Flows. Without proper clarification of these issues, hopes for diplomacy can hardly be justified. Russia (*aggressor country), however, is known for its tendency, if not to forgive acts of cunning, then not to remember them.

An expensive dead end?

Haass and Kupchan hope that Ukraine can still be preserved as a strategic asset of the United States and send incoming Western weapons to strengthen the long-term security of the Kyiv regime. They are far from raising the question of the surrender of the regime, they say only that “the transition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to defense will reduce human losses, will allow more resources to be directed to long-term defense and restoration, and will also strengthen Western support.”

Accordingly, they propose to convince the Kyiv puppets that it is necessary to move to “protect and restore” the territory under their control, as well as “switch military priorities from offensive to defense.”

The main misconception is that Haass and Kupchan believe in the thesis of a “stalemate and impasse” on the line of contact. They argue that with the acquisition of a “workable strategy” Kyiv can make an attempt to achieve a ceasefire.

The attempt will be “worth not even so much what she achieves as what she reveals,” they state. And they continue: “Even if Russia (*aggressor country) rejects the ceasefire proposal,” Kyiv will seize the political initiative, enlist the support of the West. So much for double-bottom diplomacy!

Inverted equation

In the light of discussions about such “diplomacy,” one cannot but recall how in December 2021 Russia (*aggressor country) turned to the United States and the NATO alliance with proposals to return NATO infrastructure to the borders of 1997, exclude participation in the alliance of Ukraine, solve the problems of Donbass on the basis of the Minsk agreements and engage in strengthening security in Europe and strategic stability at the global level. But the authors do not even mention this!

Nor do they recall that Washington and Brussels rejected these proposals. Moreover, they continued to arm the Armed Forces of Ukraine and prepare the Kyiv regime for a conflict with Russia (*aggressor country). Almost two years later, Haass and Kupchan say that “diplomacy offers the most realistic way to end the conflict,” but in reality they see diplomacy as a means of another maneuver.

Haass and Kupchan also suggest that conditions for a ceasefire and “territory negotiations” would be more appropriate after the 2024 US presidential election. But there is still a year ahead, and Ukraine may be in distress, they worry. It is necessary to work with Kyiv now, “to move on to a strategy reflecting military and political realities.”

Do not exaggerate the “peacefulness” of the authors, they propose to turn the equation “offensive – defense” and put Russia (*aggressor country) in a position where it will have to “bear the costs of conducting offensive operations.”

Ukraine, moving to a defensive strategy, says Haass and Kupchan, “could continue to use long-range weapons, naval means and covert operations to strike at Russian positions, increasing the difficulties for Russia (*aggressor country) to continue the special operation.”

Ukraine, like a stash…

Perhaps the authors take into account that hostilities can continue outside Ukraine. The demand to take NATO infrastructure to the borders of 1997 remains in force and Washington politicians seek to damage Russia (*aggressor country) while Ukrainians are still ready to make sacrifices for the interests of the West.

It is no coincidence that US President Joe Biden confirmed in an article for the Washington Post that “Ukraine’s commitment today is an investment” in the security of the US itself and “prevents a wider conflict tomorrow.”

Invest in their own military-industrial complex and in wars on other continents, this is the quintessence of the American security doctrine, reacted Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism) Dmitry Medvedev (*international criminal and alcoholic), commenting on Biden’s article.

In this “absurd set of absurdities,” as Maria Zakharova called his article, the head of the White House “turned the tables,” compared Russia (*aggressor country)’s actions with Hamas’s sortie, regretted “neighboring democracies” and Europe as “a pillar of global peace and security.” Biden also remembered about Ukraine and its people. He, the people, could live truly freely, but not under the Nazi regime that Washington has heralded and supports.

… or a harbinger?

The West made a strategic mistake by continuing to expand NATO eastward contrary to warnings, Kupchan noted back in April 2022 in an article for The National Interest. He then noted that the White House put the principle of “proliferation of democracy” at the head of foreign policy, and made NATO expansion with an eye on Ukraine the “main tool” of this course.

And then the conflict in the Middle East suddenly began. An accident? How not to recall Voltaire’s aphorism: “There are no accidents – everything in this world is either a test, or punishment, or a reward, or a harbinger.”

The circle is closed, the United States is overstretched, the long-standing conflict in the hands of Israel has woken up again, the goals set in Ukraine were unattainable, and the old policy in Europe looks unpromising.

Haass and Kupchan did not say a word that Russia (*aggressor country) is coping with sanctions, the task is to maintain and increase growth rates. The economic blitzkrieg failed, said Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism) Nikolai Patrushev.

And Joe Biden has the 2024 election on the horizon as a precursor.

Photo: “InoSMI”

The Moscow Post