War in Ukraine and US elections

12 September 2023, 09:10 PM

In general, these policies are rooted in several factors and considerations:

·       The dynamics of the war in Ukraine;

·       the desire to stop the bloodshed, get rid of the excessive military burden, and eliminate the risks of aggression from Russia – now and in the future;

·       Cold War-era attitude to Russia as a superpower, the remnants of fears of its threats and ultimatums, and the fear of the conflict turning into a nuclear war;

·       The attitude to modern Russia as a huge market, a source of profit, which is hypocritically reinforced by the adoration of its cultural heritage;

·       The inability (under the influence of powerful propaganda) to imagine a future world without Russia, embodied in the formula "without Russia, neither European nor global security is possible";

·       Fears of a hypothetical "unification" of combat potentials of Russia and China;

·       Expectations of elections in the United States, a country that has a huge political and financial influence on the members of the anti-Russian coalition, in particular with regard to arms supplies to Ukraine; fears of a return to isolationist policies;

·       Elections in other countries where the influence of Russian agents and flourishing political populism and radicalism of the right and left are observed.

To the extent that these factors manifest themselves and influence public opinion and politics in Western countries, their positions on the course and outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian war are divided into a wide range of two options:

·       waiting for the parties to the armed conflict to "mature" and find compromises and resolve the conflict at the negotiating table with a "strong position of Ukraine." This involves pushing Ukraine (in particular, through modest arms supplies) and forcing Russia (through military losses and sanctions) to start negotiations, but with unforeseen results;

·       strong support for Ukraine in its quest for a complete victory over Moscow. This includes providing the Ukraine’s Armed Forces with the nomenclature and volume of weapons needed, financial and humanitarian assistance, and comprehensive political support for Ukraine on the international arena.

By the end of the year Ukraine will be under pressure to sit down at the negotiating table

Given the above factors, the real course of events at the front, the state of affairs with the supply of certain types of weapons that is far from Ukraine’s stated needs, NATO's inability to resolve the Black Sea crisis, the lack of decisive responses to Russian provocations on NATO's eastern flank, we can assume that by the end of the year Ukraine will be under pressure to sit down at the negotiating table.

Such attempts have very little chance of success, if only because the parties to the conflict are not satisfied with the negotiations: Ukraine – on Russia's terms (refusal to join NATO and acceptance of "new geographical realities" in the form of annexation of the occupied territories, lifting of sanctions); Russia – on Ukraine's terms (withdrawal of troops from all occupied territories, including Crimea).

Unfortunately, many Western politicians are focused on quick results and are unwilling to consider that a "half-victory" in the negotiations will be perceived by the West's adversaries as its defeat, weakness, and limited ability to remain a leading center of power in the emerging world. In addition, the negotiations – given Russia's ability to stall, and the half-hearted positions of China, India, and other "peacekeepers" – may last for an unknown amount of time, and given the compromise-making nature of Western partners and Ukraine's critical dependence on their assistance, the results of these negotiations may be far from desirable, emphasizing once again the Western weakness.

The "half-victory" over Russia will also leave a lot of uncertainty during the upcoming U.S. election campaign, due to disagreements within the current administration, among [U.S. President Joe] Biden's opponents, and among the rival candidates. Biden's team will be criticized both for "excessive" aid to Ukraine – instead of supporting its own economy – and for its lack of it – due to the deterioration of its international image and diminished influence. The only thing that kind of criticism would be powerless against is a positive outcome, i.e., a complete victory for Ukraine in the war against Russia.

Thus, Ukraine has to respond to the proposals for negotiations with decisive victories on the battlefield by the end of the year. A similar point of view can be heard from many sane Western politicians, experts, and public figures. It is possible that the Biden administration is not ruling out the option of providing Ukraine with more substantial assistance early next year (Abrams tanks, aircraft, long-range missiles) in order to formalize Russia's defeat for the presidential election (with a high probability that other NATO allies will follow suit).

The question is what kind of victory. Recall that Ukraine's vision of victory is not only to expel the invading troops from our territory, but also to de-fang it and make it impossible for Moscow to invade ever again. In other words, we are talking about a radical administrative and political reformatting of Russia. In its current form, conventionally "good," bad, or bloodthirsty leaders infected with the Russian imperial virus will continue succeeding each other on the throne. This is Russia’s core essence.

However, it is hard to imagine that without depriving Putin of economic leverage over the situation in the regions and the country as a whole, it will be possible to deprive him of power. If some economic experts are to be believed, Russia will begin to crawl into a serious economic crisis as early as the beginning of next year. Perhaps the current U.S. administration is betting on just such a confluence of factors – Russia's military and economic defeat – in order to align these processes with the U.S. political calendar? But I repeat, the trigger for this process should be the victories of the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the battlefield, won under the current nature of military and technical assistance, paid for with the blood of Ukrainian soldiers.

This is the cynicism of real politics.

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Google News