Whoever wins the US elections, the beginning of the new administration should be an opportunity for a serious reassessment of the US policy towards the war in Ukraine, writes the American magazine The Nation.
Because it is abundantly clear that the current course is unsustainable and, if continued in this way, will probably lead sooner or later to either the breakup of Ukraine or an outright war between NATO and Russia.
The news from the Ukrainian front line is grim. Ukrainian forces are vastly outnumbered, as well as in artillery and ammunition. There are increasing signs of attrition, demoralization, desertion and evasion of service by both the elite and the common people. Russian success is based on the fact that Russia simply has far greater resources than Ukraine in terms of industry and manpower.
Ukrainians and Western hawks argue that more Western weapons will make a critical difference. And indeed, if some of them had been provided in 2022, when the Russian armed forces were in serious disarray, they could have led to much greater Ukrainian success. Now, however, Russia's advantage is so great that Western supplies cannot matter much.
Western industry cannot produce anything like the number of artillery shells that Ukraine needs. The US cannot provide enough air defense systems to Israel and Ukraine and keep enough for a possible war with China. And above all, NATO cannot produce soldiers for Ukraine.
Tragically, Ukraine and the West often condemn the possibility of a compromise peace and insist on a total Ukrainian victory. They continue to argue that if Putin is allowed to keep southeastern Ukraine, he will then attack NATO. This is nonsense.
A more persuasive argument, advanced for example by Ivan Krastev in the Financial Times, is that with the Russian military advancing, Putin has no incentive to seek peace now.
We cannot know which Russian terms are absolute and which are negotiable until we enter into negotiations with Russia. And starting negotiations does not mean accepting the original Russian conditions.
Members of the Russian establishment have suggested that in exchange for a neutrality treaty excluding (Ukraine's) membership in NATO, Russia would give up further territorial ambitions.
Authorize neutral powers like India and Brazil to make similar peace offers to the Russians. Given the efforts the Russian government has made to court these countries and the “global majority”, it will be very difficult for Putin to reject a peace initiative from them.
Western support for Ukraine must continue during the negotiations so that Ukrainian forces inflict heavy casualties on the enemy, thereby encouraging the Russians to accept a compromise. However, we must not delude ourselves either that our support will last indefinitely, or that it can help Ukraine regain the territory it has lost.
If the next US administration fails to adopt this course, then there is a serious risk that, like the armies of World War I after years of trench warfare, the Ukrainian military will eventually disintegrate.
Washington will be faced with a choice between accepting a heavy Ukrainian defeat or directly intervening and risking a nuclear war with Russia.