Establishment Looking for Ukraine Exit
Foreign Affairs is the most prestigious policy magazine in the world. It’s published by the Council on Foreign Relations, which conspiracy mongers say controls the world. It doesn’t, although its members are powerful and influential. As to Foreign Affairs itself, I like to say it’s “the Establishment talking to itself.” I used to have a subscription, but gave it up because they doubled the price as the quality of writing declined. But I’m still on their email list, so I get their list of articles, with short synopses. Some of those articles are free.
One published today, April 13, and probably free if you click on the link, shows the Establishment is looking for a way out of its Ukraine debacle, “The West Needs a New Strategy in Ukraine: A Plan for Getting From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table.” It’s by CFR President Richard Hass and Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University. Can’t get more Establishment than that.
The key is not the details in the middle of the article, which repeas a lot of the nonsense, but that they’re even bringing up “Getting…to the Negotiating Table.” The article comes up after several major developments:
The revelation of the secret documents showing the disastrous state of Ukraine’s military, in particular its massive personnel losses and dwindling armamentarium.
Trump appearing on Tucker Carlson and warning about how close we actually are to nuclear Armageddon.
Bobby Kennedy Jr. announcing he’s running for the Democratic Party’s nomination as a peace candidate.
Seymour Hersh’s latest revelations that Zelensky embezzled $400 million of our U.S. tax dollars that was supposed to go to his war effort.
President Biden’s increasing decrepitude, as shown during his trip to Ireland.
Add it up, and it’s clear the Establishment sees it needs to wind down the Ukraine War before the primaries next year. The Haas-Kupchan article’s penultimate paragraph:
For over a year, the West has allowed Ukraine to define success and set the war aims of the West. This policy, regardless of whether it made sense at the outset of the war, has now run its course. It is unwise, because Ukraine’s goals are coming into conflict with other Western interests. And it is unsustainable, because the war’s costs are mounting, and Western publics and their governments are growing weary of providing ongoing support. As a global power, the United States must acknowledge that a maximal definition of the interests at stake in the war has produced a policy that increasingly conflicts with other U.S. priorities.
It's clear they want out. But they can’t leave it just at that. Here’s the last paragraph, reiterating some of their contradictory assertions about how Ukraine still can advance militarily:
The good news is that there is a feasible path out of this impasse. The West should do more now to help Ukraine defend itself and advance on the battlefield, putting it in the best position possible at the negotiating table later this year. In the meantime, Washington should set a diplomatic course that ensures the security and viability of Ukraine within its de facto borders—while working to restore the country’s territorial integrity over the long term. This approach may be too much for some and not enough for others. But unlike the alternatives, it has the advantage of blending what is desirable with what is doable.
If you’ve been reading my blog since the war started Feb. 24, 2022, you know the Russian victory was all but inevitable. The Biden administration and NATO badly miscalculated this whole misadventure. They thought Russia was “a gas station with missiles,” as the late Sen. John McCain said, a phrase foolishly repeated recently by Gov. DeSantis. But how do you produce missiles and 6,000 nuclear bombs? With a major industrial base.
They thought they could implode Russia’s economy with sanctions. That was reiterated by top neocon strategist John Bolton, in the WSJ also today, as an aim he still wants, in “A New American Grand Strategy to Counter Russia and China: The U.S. and its allies can’t afford to drift aimlessly as history’s tectonic plates shift”:
[A]fter Ukraine wins its war with Russia, we must aim to split the Russia-China axis. Moscow’s defeat could unseat Putin’s regime. What comes next is a government of unknown composition. New Russian leaders may or may not look to the West rather than Beijing, and might be so weak that the Russian Federation’s fragmentation, especially east of the Urals, isn’t inconceivable. Beijing is undoubtedly eyeing this vast territory, which potentially contains incalculable mineral wealth.
See how the neocons think? It’s insane. First, if Russia broke up, what would happen to the 6,000 “loose nukes”? Would one be sold on the Ukrainian black market that’s making Zelensky rich, soon to blow up next to your house? And who pushed the Russians and Chinese together this past year? The neocons and their foolish policy.
It’s this kind of nonsense Haas and Kupchan are trying to move beyond. So what’s next? I only can guess. The expected Ukrainian offensive either won’t occur, or will fizzle out because they don’t have enough troops and equipment, and the Russians are ready for it. Then, in late June or early July, the immense force the Russians have assembled, close to 1 million strong, will begin an offensive. Ukraine’s air defenses have become so depleted Russian now will have air superiority for the first time, as they have shown in their recent actions.
If that happens, it’s Russia that will decide when to end the war, where there the cease fire line will be located, and what will be the terms of the peace. Angela Merkel’s revealed last year the 2014 Minsk II accords were a sham, so Russia won’t trust any new deal they can’t enforce themselves.
Finally, I think the Democrats’ honchos will seek to end this war so they, and their kept media, can bury it along with the 2021 Afghanistan debacle. The first law of politics is: Stay in office. Then next year they can move beyond Ukraine and advance all they’re other destructive policies.