RS: US-Ukrainian interests unaligned, could mean suicide for Ukraine
5 Min Read
A report by Responsible Statecraft explains that the overly ambitious definition of victory the US suggested for achievements that would mean the end of the war in Ukraine would provoke a dangerous escalation from Russia.
-
The Ukrainian and United States flags are placed on the table during a meeting with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal at the Pentagon, Wednesday, April 12, 2023, in Washington. (AP)
On the grounds that "We must not repeat the error of Sept. 1, 1939," US Representative Joe Wilson alongside Representative Steve Cohen have co-sponsored a so-called Ukrainian Victory Resolution according to a report by Responsible Statecraft (RS).
Emulating Cold War-era thinking, the representatives frame the resolution with the rhetoric of that era with the aspiration that Ukraine can regain its 1991 borders and will be brought into NATO once victory is achieved and the war is over. So far, the bill has 18 bipartisan co-sponsors.
On Tuesday, a group of hawks from both parties in Congress unveiled the new "Victory" resolution, the RS report detailed.
In a similar attempt, Senators Lindsey Graham, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Richard Blumenthal also introduced a resolution after three senators and 16 House Republicans addressed a letter to US President Joe Biden noting their refusal to support any new Ukrainian "aid" if it would not be paired with an explicit diplomatic strategy to put an end to the war in Ukraine.
What do such resolutions mean?
According to Responsible Statecraft, the two resolutions are set to drive the conversation about the "extent of US Ukraine policy and support ahead of an expected Ukrainian counteroffensive this spring."
The suggested resolutions argued two main points. Primarily they denote that the US fully backs the argument that victory in Ukraine cannot be achieved until Kiev restores its 1991 borders; meaning the retake of not just the Donbass region, but also Crimea.
Read more: Congressman pushes for sending banned cluster bombs to Kiev
In the event that the US adopts such a policy, the "unrealistic goal" set above, the US would be forcing its own hand into a direct confrontation with Russia. Any attempt to recapture Crimea could result in dangerous consequences. RS explained that any such attempt "could provoke Russian escalation, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons."
The officials in Kiev would be thrilled to hear that the US fully supported Ukraine in restoring its 1991 border. However, at a time when Ukraine lacked the capabilities "to achieve those goals on the ground," the RS report argued, the US would be sending a dangerous message that "seems more likely to blow up in the faces of both Washington and Kyiv."
This overly ambitious definition of "victory" would inevitably prolong the war.
The Ukrainian dilemma
The RS report contended that at a time when Ukraine, according to the Pentagon Leaks, is unlikely to achieve any significant gains in the anticipated spring counteroffensive, Washington must rather encourage Ukraine to "settle for a return to the pre-2022 lines."
The most recent leaks predicted that for the rest of 2023, the war in Ukraine will maintain a stalemate wherein Ukraine will be unlikely to recapture any of its territories lost to Russia since 2014. As such, the RS report stated, "It is irresponsible to endorse those goals when that promises to drag out the war much longer to no one’s benefit."
“Absent NATO involvement, the Ukrainian Army can hold the line and regain ground, as it has done in Kharkiv and Kherson, but complete victory is very nearly impossible,” said Thomas Meaney of the Max Planck Society in Germany, reaffirming that complete "victory" could only be achieved with US and NATO boots on the ground support.
Accordingly, the RS report explained that no Western government much support "Ukraine to seek its most ambitious goals."
US and Ukrainian interests diverge
The RAND Corporation’s Samuel Charap and Miranda Priebe wrote, “Territorial control, although immensely important to Ukraine, is not the most important dimension of the war’s future for the United States. We conclude that, in addition to averting possible escalation to a Russia-NATO war or Russian nuclear use, avoiding a long war is also a higher priority for the United States than facilitating significantly more Ukrainian territorial control.”
In light of that conclusion, the RS report highlighted that the "victory" resolution must acknowledge the diverging and disparate Ukrainian and US interests regarding the war in Ukraine and the goals the war is meant to achieve.
Driving Ukraine toward making rash decisions with the hopes of achieving practically impossible goals would only backfire against Ukraine. It is worth reminding that due to the diverging interests, it could be beneficial for the US to push Ukraine in the direction of ambitious "victory" goals, however, this could be suicide for Kiev.
Read more: Leaks show Ukraine sought to target Russia in Syria via Kurdish SDF
