US against two difficult options in Ukraine: Both are grim

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: Responsible Statecraft
14 Aug 2023 21:36
1 Shares

A Responsible Statecraft report says that the White House managed to position itself in a situation in Ukraine that would lead to the undesirable outcomes.

US President Joe Biden meets with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev in February 2023 (AP)

Initially, the plan for the war in Ukraine involved strengthening Kiev's military, launching a summer offensive to recapture territory, and then negotiating peace from a strong position.

However, two months into the operation, this outcome seems less probable, Responsible Statecraft said in a report on Monday.

The counteroffensive fell into a stalemate as inexperienced, exhausted, and under-trained troops faced entrenched Russian solid defenses, resulting in a horrific number of casualties.

Major American media are also resonating with this realization. Prominent outlets such as the Washington Post, CNN, and New York Times, while fierce advocates of arming Ukraine and supporting its war efforts, began releasing reports offering a darkened picture of the ground situation.

Ukraine is depleting resources at an unsustainable rate, firing 90,000 artillery rounds per month when the Pentagon is only capable of producing a third of that number, while also losing around 20 percent of NATO-provided weapons - that were either destroyed or damaged - within the first two weeks of the counteroffensive, which saw very limited ground gains since it was launched almost two months ago.

But President Joe Biden has made a new request for Congress to approve $20.6 billion more in aid for Ukraine, arguing that “the United States is committed to maintaining strong global opposition to Russia’s illegal war.”

In light of all that is mentioned, the report questions: "Where is all of this going and how is it going to end?"

Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky was given until the end of summer to make as much battle progress as possible before US assistance dried up and he was forced to engage in talks, WaPo reported earlier citing US officials.

However, Washington remains insistent that it will provide support for Kiev “as long as it takes."

According to CNN quoting an anonymous senior official earlier his month, “We don’t know how much longer this war is going to go on,” but that the White House “won’t be bashful about going back to Congress beyond the first quarter of next year if we feel like we need to do that.”

This statement was in line with a Defense Intelligence Agency assessment leaked back in April (part of the Pentagon files leaks) which concluded that peace negotiations are unlikely to happen this year “in all considered scenarios.”

While it could be that Washington simply wants to exude resolve, there is also a chance that there is some truth to it, according to the report.

NATO and its allies have been promoting the urgency to deliver arms to Ukraine, which, according to Western-devised rhetoric, not only benefits Kiev in terms of its war objectives but is also crucial for American national security, rules-based international order, and democracy.

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby launched a campaign recently to urge those concerned about the expenses of continuing aid to Ukraine “to consider what those costs — not just in treasure but in blood, perhaps even American blood — could be if Putin subjugates Ukraine and then sets his sights on our NATO allies,” warning that “if we just sit back and we let Putin win, we let him take Ukraine, where does it stop next?”

Washington would have to make an abrupt U-turn on all its warnings in case it decided to step away from supporting the war when it claimed that US assistance is part of fighting for future global peace and that democracy hangs on defeating Russia, or as President Biden declared while visiting Poland this February, that “what literally is at stake is not just Ukraine, it’s freedom."

After the White House embarked on a campaign since the beginning of the war to make these claims, it will have to suddenly inform and persuade the public that the actual level of risk and importance at hand is considerably less significant than what it has previously asserted.

Yet this maximalist approach remains dominant in the US political arena.

In a recent interview with MSNBC, Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie made a claim that was even agreed with by his Democratic hosts.

Christie argued that, in the case that the US "cut and run" from Ukraine, this would prompt a Chinese attack on Taiwan, which would inevitably necessitate sending “American men and women” to fight Chinese soldiers. This would also result in mass abandonment of the US by its Middle East allies in favor of Beijing.

His suggestion that the outcome of the war in Ukraine would affect China's decision regarding Taiwan has been also suggested by US experts, lawmakers, and even the White House.

These statements echo the “domino theory” promoted during the Cold War era, a hollow doctrine that led to the US making its invasion of Vietnam.

Even if officials don't genuinely hold the belief that the security of the United States and Europe is at immediate risk, there's a noticeable potential concern: The reputation and trustworthiness of both the United States and NATO.

Just as the backing of Ukraine has revitalized and outwardly united the alliance, concluding the conflict after an unsuccessful offensive and with Ukraine unable to take control of territories as mentioned in its war objectives, might yield a contrary outcome.

Even worse, any Russian success — whether substantiated or perceived — might be interpreted as politically intolerable or potentially embarrassing for NATO's leadership. This situation could also reveal internal differences between member countries that have been mostly kept hidden until this point.

Fears about the erosion of reputation and credibility played a role in prolonging US involvement in wars such as Vietnam, as well as in the cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts.

In the interim, indications from reports suggest that, whether accurately or inaccurately, Biden perceives the battlefield outcome as a significant factor influencing his prospects for reelection in the upcoming year.

However, recent polling data reveals that a majority of Americans, comprising 71 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of independents, are against extending additional military assistance to Ukraine. Interestingly, it's the Democrats who exhibit the highest level of support for such aid.

This situation may put Washington in a difficult dilemma: face fierce criticism, even from the administration's support base - such as happened after Afghanistan - if it moves to put an end to the war in Ukraine without achieving previously committed terms, or pushing the war longer and bet on success further down the line, and the overall mood in the United States may wary of the war. Both scenarios would eventually hurt his reelection plans.

Furthermore, the situation gains additional significance as we observe Poland's ongoing deployment of troops along its border with Belarus. This serves as a reminder that a protracted conflict presents numerous opportunities for the type of escalation that might compel NATO member states to confront the decision to uphold their Article V obligations.

One aspect remains certain: Delaying the administration's efforts to establish the foundation for a diplomatic resolution, both publicly and through discreet channels, will only intensify the challenges associated with such an endeavor. The most severe consequences of this delay will be endured by the Ukrainian population. It is our aspiration that, in the event of an alternative strategy (plan B), the White House is diligently safeguarding its confidentiality.