Summary:
-
In reality, Russia has already lost the war.
-
Despite public rejections, the White House has been reluctantly opening the door to dialogue.
-
Rebuilding Ukraine is estimated to cost $1 trillion, so it’s clear that the war needs to end, and more people are cautiously pushing for a diplomatic solution.
-
In a recent column, former UN ambassador Tom Pickering and George Beebe, who is the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and was a special adviser on Russia to former Vice President Dick Cheney, say that the only way to end the war is through diplomacy, even though the problems seem insurmountable.
-
While most of the globe opted not to take sides in the conflict, the Russian invasion shocked public opinion everywhere.
In the Ukraine battle, it might be time to try diplomacy.
“Take advantage of the opportunity to negotiate when peace is possible.” That statement wasn’t made by a soft-spoken liberal or a peace activist. General Mark A. Milley, who is in charge of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is said to have pressured the Biden administration to ask Ukraine to try to solve the conflict through diplomacy.
According to news reports, Milley’s viewpoint is reportedly opposed at the White House. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, said that Russia’s recent withdrawal from Kherson was a “major event” for Ukraine. He also said that the administration would not try to solve the conflict through diplomacy. He inexplicably equated negotiations with surrender, saying, “If Ukraine chose to stop fighting and give up, it would be the end of Ukraine.”
But in reality, it makes sense to use diplomacy, and there are signs that the White House may be coming around to the idea.
In reality, Russia has already lost the war. The aspirations of President Vladimir Putin to conquer Ukraine have been dashed. His economy has been hurt, his country is now on its own, and the weaknesses of his military have become known. His troops have suffered terrible losses; their morale is low, and they are running low on ammunition.
The gains made by Ukraine on the battlefield have also been extremely costly. Milley calculates that there have been at least 100,000 fatalities on each side. Ukraine’s troops can’t do anything without help from the West. They also don’t have enough people, weapons, air support, or artillery. The millions have uprooted Ukrainians. Russia has ravaged the electrical grid in Ukraine. Like much of the nation, liberated Kherson is confronted with a “humanitarian crisis.” As Putin gets more soldiers, there is also not much chance that Russia will be forced to leave most of the Russian-speaking east, let alone Crimea.
Even though the US and NATO are now on Ukraine’s side, their support is not very strong. Sanctions against Russia have added to what looks like a terrible recession in Europe.
People are furious about the rising cost of living, and angry protests have spread throughout the continent. President Biden has received backing from both parties here at home. Still, would-be House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) fired the proverbial shot across the bow when he said that if the Republicans take control of the House, there would be no “blank check” for Ukraine.
Late in October, the Congressional Progressive Caucus members wrote a letter urging diplomacy. The letter was quickly retracted because of the intense backlash. However, as the administration’s covert actions demonstrate, Milley and the caucus were correct.
Despite public rejections, the White House has been reluctantly opening the door to dialogue. The White House encouraged Ukrainian leaders to “signal an openness” to negotiations. Sullivan had a private conversation about Ukraine with Putin’s aides, and he had been “testing the waters” while in Kyiv on “how the conflict can end and what options are available to us.” As journalist Aaron Maté has written in great detail, the government has set up several leaks.
Since it doesn’t want to weaken Ukrainian resistance, alliance unity, or domestic support, the administration is walking a fine line. However, the West’s interests obviously diverge from those of the Ukrainians. NATO came together on the battlefield over two fundamental principles: not deploying soldiers on the ground and being cautious about whether weapons are sent to Ukraine. In talks, the interests are also at odds. Zelensky will find a deal with the Russians, and it will be hard for him to agree to give up land or even go back to the way things were before the war because so much damage has been done to his country. His best chance would be to enlist NATO and the United States as combatants, but neither is willing to do it.
Rebuilding Ukraine is estimated to cost $1 trillion, so it’s clear that the war needs to end, and more people are cautiously pushing for a diplomatic solution. In a recent column, former UN ambassador Tom Pickering and George Beebe, who is the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and was a special adviser on Russia to former Vice President Dick Cheney, say that the only way to end the war is through diplomacy, even though the problems seem insurmountable. They respond to those who say the timing is inappropriate by saying that diplomacy takes time and that planning should begin immediately. They say that negotiations could start with less complicated issues, like how to keep civilian deaths to a minimum, build trust between the two sides, and lay the groundwork for a possible cease-fire for those who say the border disputes can’t be solved.
While most of the globe opted not to take sides in the conflict, the Russian invasion shocked public opinion everywhere. It fueled a nationalistic frenzy in the US and caused the truth to meet an early demise. As the progressive caucus mess showed, people who want to fight will try to shut down calls for peace or diplomacy. The risks and costs of the crisis will only increase, and the stakes are too high for us to do nothing.
Analysis by: Advocacy Unified Network
