'Foolish proposals'; Biden pressured to globalize war on Russia: RS

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: Responsible Statecraft
7 Sep 2023 16:13
2 Shares

The report warns that the US expansion of its conflict with Russia beyond Ukraine would result in unpredictable consequences.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) and US President Joe Biden shake hands during their meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021 (AP)

Pressure is growing on the administration of US President Joe Biden to escalate against Russia and globalize the military fight against Moscow, despite the very serious repercussions of such a move on both the US and Europe alike, Responsible Statecraft said in a report on Thursday.

Such a plan, if implemented, risks repeating one of the most detrimental errors of the Cold War era, all while having minimal or negligible impact on the ongoing conflict in Europe.

Walter Russell Mead, an anti-Russia hawk, called in a recent column published in The Wall Street Journal for the United States to launch an international war of attrition against Russia and target its global interests. He added that Washington must operate "in a [Russian] target-rich environment” in order to bring the “cost of war home to the Kremlin.”

Mead also called for working against Wagner PMC in West Africa's Sahel, increasing cooperation with Ankara among other countries to make Russia's President Vladimir Putin's "presence in Syria ruinously expensive," and targeting Moscow's Latin American allies, in addition to exerting pressure on Russian forces in Moldova.

According to the Responsible Statecraft report, the columnist suggested plans that are unworkable at best, adding that such a strategy will not significantly impact Russia's capabilities in Ukraine or help Kiev conduct a war of attrition.

In contrast, targeting Russian forces or affiliated groups in other regions might push Moscow to recall all its fighters around the world and deploy them in Ukraine.

The report questions Mead's assertion that the US and its "European and Gulf allies" can eliminate Russian influence in the Sahel, given the challenges they are facing in that region. It pointed out that French influence is diminishing in the Sahel, US African partners are losing control due to military coups, and "so-called Gulf allies" are not reliably in line with US interests in the continent.

The problem also lies in the active pursuit of militarized policies by the US and its allies, which have often backfired and allowed Russia to exploit the resulting instability to its advantage. Furthermore, the report sheds doubt about the feasibility of the US "rolling up" Russian forces in Sahel, having the WSJ article not providing details on the suggestion.

Such an endeavor would likely require a larger military presence and a more interventionist approach than what the US currently pursues. Moreover, it is unclear how the United States would operate in countries where leaders cooperate directly with Russia.

"Is Washington supposed to 'roll up' these junta regimes, too?," the RS report questioned, adding that it would be near-impossible for US officials to justify to American families why their sons are being deployed in West Africa for an uncertain effort against Russia.

It is also unclear why Turkey and other "neighboring states" would want to participate in the offensive against Russia in Syria, or why would such a measure not result in direct Russian retaliation against US forces deployed in the Middle East.

The WSJ report assumes that US plans would not be met with Russian counter plans and that attacks on Moscow's interest would remain one-sided without prompting a response by Russia, practically indicating that Washington and its allies have "virtually unlimited power."

Mead also fails to point out how this strategy, including military operations in West Africa, would help Ukraine in overcoming its disadvantages in the conflict.

But the most "far-fetched" proposal is attacking Latin American allies of Moscow, the RS report stressed.

The United States has already imposed devastating sanctions against countries with close relations to Moscow; however, this has pushed these nations to deepen their ties with Russia, not the other way around.

While Mead does not clarify what he meant when suggesting that Washington should "target" the Latin American countries, it is not difficult to assume that he is referring to regime-change efforts that the US is renowned for in the region.

Read more: RS: The fate of US troops in Niger

Few actions would tarnish the United States' reputation in Latin America as severely as returning to the era of orchestrating coups to coerce neighboring nations into aligning with American interests, and this is one of them, the RS report said.

Efforts by the US to forcefully remove Russian influence from the Western hemisphere could strain relations with neighboring countries and potentially push some undecided states closer to Moscow. Instead of diminishing Moscow's influence, such aggressive actions would provide Russia with a PR victory and contradict Washington's assertion that nations, including its allies, have the autonomy to select their own alliances and associates.

"The last thing the U.S. should be doing is escalating its rivalry with Russia in other regions," the report said, adding that this tactic would expose American interests in focused regions to heavy risks, including the US troops deployed in areas of interest. This approach could also create new enemies and push away potential partners, as Washington emphasizes that its Ukraine policy is above all else.

The United States already faces challenges in justifying its backing for Kiev in various parts of the world, and it would encounter heightened skepticism if it chose to extend the conflict beyond Ukraine by targeting Russian interests in other regions.

While the WSJ author describes these proposals as "smarter and politically more sustainable ways" to assist Ukraine in its war, "there is nothing smart about further stoking instability in the Sahel and Syria," in the name of harming Russia, the RS report stressed.

This strategy would assume that conflict with Russia is more important than the lives and interests of people in targeted countries, which should not be the case.

It echoes the Cold War error of regarding these countries merely as theaters for conflicts, subsequently abandoning them when the adversaries lose interest. Such an approach wouldn't provide any meaningful assistance to Ukraine but could potentially escalate costs for both the US and the countries impacted by these "foolish proposals".

Rather than seeking to escalate the conflict to other parts of the world, Washington should prioritize its endeavors to bring an end to the fighting in Ukraine by directing its efforts to reach a ceasefire, which could serve as the cornerstone for a more durable long-term truce.

Biden in a sticky position

The current reality in the United States, while seemingly complex, is simple. According to recent polls, the majority of Americans, from both parties, have now reached a point where they feel that their country has done enough for Ukraine and that Washington must focus on fixing its struggling economy, which is impacting their living standard severely.

Major American news outlets are also resonating with this realization, including ones that are on the Democrats' side or leaning toward it. Prominent outlets such as The Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times, despite being previously hawkish advocates of arming Ukraine and supporting its war efforts, began releasing reports offering a darkened picture of the ground situation.

While there are no signs so far that Biden is seriously considering Mead's strategy, a closing-in election might force the President to make radical decisions.

Ukraine's failed counteroffensive, despite over $40 billion in support so far while the US economy continues to deal blows to American citizens, has proved that the current policy of Biden's administration is unsustainable. However, Washington is still doubling down on the "as long as it takes" commitment, most recently by US State Secretary Antony Blinken during a surprise visit to Kiev.

This situation may put Washington in a difficult dilemma: either face fierce criticism, even from the administration's support base if it moves to put an end to the war in Ukraine without achieving a victory against Russia after persuading world countries that Moscow is the "devil" coming for their democracies or pushing the war longer and betting on success further down the line, while the overall mood in the United States grows wary of the war and expenses pile up against a deteriorating economy.

Both scenarios are grim, but, as per the current course of the war, remain inevitable.