1). “Leaked Pentagon documents expose US war propaganda”, April 11, 2023, Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), at < https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/04/12/pers-a12.html >.
2). “Leaked documents show massive US involvement in Ukraine war”, April 10, 2023, Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), at < https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/04/10/pers-a10.html >.
3). “Pentagon leak shows perils of spying on your friends”, Apr. 13, 2023, Adam Taylor, 1,254 words, Washington Post.
4). “The West Needs a New Strategy in Ukraine: A Plan for Getting From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table”, April 13, 2023, Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan, Foreign Affairs, at <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russia-richard-haass-west-battlefield-negotiations>
~~ recommended by dmorista ~~
Introduction by dmorista: Today turned out to be an incredibly rich day, for important events in the ongoing political and socio-economic developments and struggles. The overtly fascist Republican Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, used a tweet to announce that he had signed a 6-week gestational ban on Abortions in Florida. He signed yet another piece of draconian anti-Choice Forced-Birth legislation, trying to sneak it past the general populace in an 11:00 PM Ceremony, apparently taking place in his fascist Headquarters, the Florida Governor’s Office. He used the late evening time to try to minimize his connection with the law; which will be extremely disliked by at least 60% of the population of both Florida and the U.S. in general. These are major issues for DeSantis who so obviously wants to be President. Interestingly DeSantis chose to have himself surrounded largely by adoring Female Forced-Birth Movement Operatives. Before the resoundingly negative electoral consequences of the overturning of Roe v. Wade became so obvious, the fascist DeSantis would have staged some sort of flashy event, the way he did earlier when he signed the 15-week Abortion ban. Perhaps he would have featured pregnant women and physicians (played by actors for such an event) in Florida Prison uniforms and shackled hand and foot. Such a PR occurrence would have been similar to some of his previously staged events; particularly the ones that featured actual African-Americans who had dared to try to vote after being advised it was now legal for them to do so by any one of a variety of state and local officials.
In addition the three reactionaries on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a ruling on Mifepristone. That ruling, unsurprisingly, largely upheld the agenda of the Forced-Birth operatives' judicial gambit and the resultant injunction from the Amarillo, Texas, based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump. Of course, a Washington State Federal District Court judge has made a 180 degree opposed ruling; and if that ruling was appealed to the appropriate Appeals Court they would rule in favor of keeping the 23-year old and more recent FDA regulations on Mifepristone. However, the prospects for what will happen when the DOJ appeals Kacsmaryk’s ruling to the Partisan Hack Ultra-Reactionary U.S. Supreme Court appear to be pretty grim.
And, also in DeSantis’ Fascist nightmare the Sunshine State, Ft. Lauderdale was flooded by a 24 inch rainstorm that delivered that amount of rain in under 7 hours. The total consequences of the flooding are yet to be reckoned, the Ft. Lauderdale Airport was only reopened this morning after engineers assessed whether the runways are still usable. This latest extreme rain and flooding event occurred just a couple of days after a new study pointed out the Sea Level Rise has been very significant in the Southeastern U.S. And we must not forget that the NRA is opening its annual meeting today in Indianapolis.
Those other issues will be addressed in the next few days. For today I am posting several articles. These articles discuss, in one way or another, U.S. / NATO Proxy War Against Russia, raging in Ukraine. This was highlighted a couple of days ago when an Air Force National Guardsman reservist named Jack Teixeira sent around 100 secret documents to his pals in a social media group; he oversaw a private online group called Thug Shaker Central on the chat app Discord, that had something on the order of 20-30 members. Item 1). “Leaked Pentagon documents expose US war propaganda”, and Item 2). “Leaked documents show massive US involvement in Ukraine war”, point out that the Corporate Controlled Media have studiously mostly ignored the very unfavorable assessments of the Proxy War in Ukraine and the grim prospects for Ukraine in the upcoming months. In fact the analyses of the Proxy War against Russia in Ukraine are at least as negative as those found in the famous Pentagon Papers of the Vietnam War era. Item 3)., “Pentagon leak shows perils of spying on your friends”, shows about how far the Corporate Controlled Media will go in analyzing the situation as regards intelligence documents with unfavorable assessments of the Proxy War in Ukraine. While we see constant coverage of the search for, the arrest of, and the court appearances of, the latest leaker; the Washington Post manages to provide 223 words in a 1,254 word article, in 4 separate places widely dispersed throughout the article.
Finally there is the Foreign Affairs article by Richard Haas (the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the U.S.’ leading imperialist Think Tanks and Pressure Groups) and Charles Kupchan. In this article Item 4)., “The West Needs a New Strategy in Ukraine: A Plan for Getting From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table”, Haas and Kupchan put forth the idea that Ukraine needs to get to the negotiation table after the summer campaigning season. In one flight of fancy they suggest that the U.S. / NATO propose a situation for Ukraine that: “ …. although it would fall short of an ironclad security guarantee, might resemble Israel’s defense relationship with the United States or the relationship that Finland and Sweden enjoyed with NATO before they decided to join the alliance.” This is a tall order, Israel in particular has been the beneficiary of Trillions of dollars of U.S. largesse, military subsidies, a couple of major wars, and the Israelis have one of the most influential lobbies in all of Washington (some would say the most influential bar none). This includes 2,000 Jewish political groups in the U.S., of which 600 are pretty clearly Israeli Front organizations
In fact Haas bluntly points out that: “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. …. 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.”
Articles in Foreign Affairs is one of the classic ways that the American Ruling Class communicates among themselves and floats new policies or major policy changes. The Haas - Kupchan article clearly falls into this category.
1). “Leaked Pentagon documents expose US war propaganda”, April 11, 2023, Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), at < https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/04/12/pers-a12.html >.
Since February 2022, the American public has been subjected to a ceaseless barrage of propaganda surrounding the Ukraine war, which has been aimed at drumming up support for US involvement in a brutal, fratricidal military conflict on the other side of the globe.
The print and broadcast media have told the public that the conflict is an “unprovoked war” and that “NATO is not involved.” Ukraine’s goals are “defensive.” There are no “American troops” in Ukraine. The next victory is just around the corner, if only the United States will send more money and advanced weapons.
{Caption: Joint Cheifs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley (left) with President Joe Biden (AP Photo/Steve Ruark) [AP Photo/Steve Ruark] }
All of these lies have been exposed by the reality of the war. More recently, they have been upended by the release of leaked documents from the Pentagon describing the degree of direct NATO involvement in the war and the disastrous military situation facing the Ukrainian government.
Despite Biden’s declaration that “I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine,” the documents show that more than 150 US and NATO troops are, in fact, deployed in the country.
And despite endless declarations that the war was “unprovoked” and that “NATO is not involved,” the documents show that US war planners see the efforts by NATO to encircle Russia and the operations of Ukrainian troops as a single campaign.
Among the most pernicious lying has been the effort to distort the military situation in Ukraine, aimed at presenting the Ukrainian military as on the verge of a major strategic breakthrough.
This campaign has sought to minimize Ukrainian losses while inflating those of the Russian side, in an effort to justify using more Ukrainian youth as cannon fodder.
In an editorial published just two weeks ago, the Washington Post wrote that Ukraine was “inflicting a terrible toll on Russian attackers — a ‘slaughter-fest,’ in the assessment of Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”
It continued, “Most Western analysts remain confident that Ukraine, which is amassing a significant arsenal from the United States and its NATO allies, retains and is building a significant offensive capacity.”
In early February, the New York Times claimed that Russian forces had suffered 200,000 casualties. “The number of Russian troops killed and wounded in Ukraine is approaching 200,000, a stark symbol of just how badly President Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion has gone, according to American and other Western officials.”
The Times reported:
The Russian military is running low on critical supplies and replenishment, said Colin H. Kahl, the under secretary of defense for policy. “They’re running low on artillery. They’re running low on standoff munitions, and they are substituting by sending convicts in human waves into places like Bakhmut and Soledar.”
Just one week ago, in an article published on April 3, the Times wrote:
Ukraine is capable of inflicting losses on the Russian Army that could have far-reaching geopolitical consequences, said Evelyn Farkas, an expert at the McCain Institute. She posited a once-unthinkable outcome: that Ukraine could render Russia a weakened military power, with little leverage in negotiations to end the war.
These triumphalist declarations have been shattered by the release of the secret Pentagon documents.
The documents reveal that, according to US military estimates, the Russian side has had 35,000-45,000 killed in action, and that, contrary to US claims that Russian munitions are on the verge of being depleted, it is, in fact, Ukraine that is running critically low on ammunition, while Russia is on the verge of achieving air supremacy.
In an article entitled, “U.S. doubts Ukraine counteroffensive will yield big gains,” the Washington Post points to internal assessments by the US military that give a far more dire picture of the situation.
The Post writes:
Ukraine’s challenges in massing troops, ammunition and equipment could cause its military to fall “well short” of Kyiv’s original goals for an anticipated counteroffensive aimed at retaking Russian-occupied areas this spring, according to U.S. intelligence assessments contained in a growing leak of classified documents revealing Washington’s misgivings about the state of the war.
The Post reports on the existence of a secret US intelligence document warning of “significant ‘force generation and sustainment shortfalls,’” and the likelihood that such an operation will result in only “modest territorial gains.”
The article declares, “It’s a marked departure from the Biden administration’s public statements about the vitality of Ukraine’s military.”
The Post concludes from these developments not that the government should not have been lying, but that the documents should never have been made public. Indeed, the newspaper declared in an editorial published the same day, “The most damaging part of the leaked Ukraine documents is the leak itself.”
In 1971, the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, which exposed a systematic US government campaign to deceive the American public about US involvement in the Vietnam War. The US engaged in military operations in Vietnam about which the public was told nothing, while the reasons given for the war were deliberate lies.
Today, the Times, alongside most of the US media, sees as its duty not to inform the public, but to facilitate the military objectives of the US government. This is what they see as “journalism.”
The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal were fully aware of the disaster facing the Ukrainian military, yet they persisted in marching in lockstep with the US government as it sought to systematically deceive the public.
In this, the media is operating in the spirit of the declaration in 2010 by then-New York Times’ executive editor Bill Keller: “Freedom of the press includes freedom not to publish, and that is a freedom we exercise with some regularity.”
In contrast to the US print and broadcast media outlets, with their vast resources and dozens of embedded reporters in Ukraine, none of the revelations in the leaks came as a surprise to the World Socialist Web Site.
Before the outbreak of the war, the WSWS warned about the massive US military buildup in Eastern Europe, explaining that the United States was seeking to escalate the conflict with Russia. Since the beginning of the US-NATO proxy war in Ukraine we have documented the massive level of US involvement.
It is the availability of information contradicting the official propaganda narrative that is behind the campaign to censor the internet, which has resulted in the systematic suppression of left-wing publications on Google, the suspension of Twitter and Facebook accounts associated with the WSWS, and the blocking of WSWS articles on Facebook.
The war in Ukraine, which has already killed or injured hundreds of thousands of people and displaced millions, must be stopped.
On Sunday, April 30, the International Committee of the Fourth International, the International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality and the World Socialist Web Site will hold an online global May Day rally to mobilize workers and young people around the world against the war in Ukraine. We urge all of those who seek to oppose the war to register today.
2). “Leaked documents show massive US involvement in Ukraine war”, April 10, 2023, Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), at < https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/04/10/pers-a10.html >.
Last week, dozens of secret documents from the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies related to US involvement in the Ukraine war began to circulate on social media platforms. Over the weekend, US officials confirmed the veracity of the documents in statements to major media outlets.
The leaked documents make clear that the US and NATO are the main driving forces of the war, with the Ukrainian military serving as a mercenary proxy force. They show that NATO has deployed over 150 military personnel to Ukraine and demonstrate the degree to which NATO funds, arms, trains and directly commands the Ukrainian military.
{Caption: In this photo taken on Nov. 19, 2021, Attache of the Land Forces at the US Embassy in Ukraine Colonel Brandon Presley looks at the map during the visit by a delegation of the US Embassy in Ukraine to the Joint Forces operation area in the war-hit Donetsk region, Ukraine (Ukrainian Joint Forces Operation Press Service via AP) [AP Photo/Ukrainian Joint Forces Operation Press Service] }
They substantiate the fact that the war is the creation of NATO, which has spent billions of dollars to hijack the Ukrainian political system and turn its population into cannon fodder for a devastating war that has led to hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian casualties.
In other words, the documents expose the entire narrative of the war promoted by the Biden White House as a lie.
In May 2022, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked whether the war in Ukraine was a “NATO proxy war.” Psaki replied, “I know that is the Russian talking point on this, but it is not a proxy war… This is a war between Russia and Ukraine. NATO is not involved.”
The documents have exposed this statement as a complete falsehood. And they have exposed the US media, which has systematically promoted the Biden administration’s lie that NATO is not involved in the war, as nothing more than the propaganda arm of US imperialism.
The documents substantiate in concrete detail what the World Socialist Web Site has previously reported.
The main revelations from the documents are:
97 NATO Special Operations troops are currently deployed inside Ukraine.
A total of 100 US personnel are deployed inside Ukraine, including 71 US military personnel.
The US military sees the training of the Ukrainian military, NATO deployments in Europe and US military deployments inside Ukraine as being interoperable, and reports all of them on a single page.
The US has drawn up detailed maps for a planned offensive operation aimed at cutting off Crimea from Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory, with “favorable” conditions for the offensive beginning in mid-May.
The US and its NATO allies are training, funding and arming three quarters of the forces that are going to be thrown into combat as part of this offensive. One of the documents declares that “12 combat credible [brigades] can be generated for the spring Counteroffensive: 3 internationally by Ukraine, and 9 are US, Allied & Partner trained and equipped.”
The documents point to a massive disparity between the US’s public and internal presentation of the level of Russian casualties. On February 2, the New York Times reported, citing US officials, that “The number of Russian troops killed and wounded in Ukraine is approaching 200,000.” By contrast, the internal documents pointed to between 35,000 and 43,000 Russian soldiers killed in action.
The New York Times emphasized that the documents show “how deeply the United States has burrowed into Russia’s security and intelligence services, allowing Washington to warn Ukraine about planned strikes and gain insights into the strength of Moscow’s war machine.” But this only demonstrates the fact that the US would have been perfectly aware that its efforts to bring Ukraine into the NATO alliance would provoke a military response from Russia with catastrophic consequences for the Ukrainian people.
Other portions of the documents reveal the extent of US spying on its “allies and partners” around the world. The Washington Post wrote that “in a reminder that the United States also spies on its allies, another document reports that South Korea’s National Security Council in early March ‘grappled’ with a U.S. request that the country provide artillery ammunition to Ukraine.” The documents, the Post wrote, “appear to reveal where the CIA has recruited human agents privy to the closed-door conversations of world leaders.” The Wall Street Journal reported, “The documents also appear to include intelligence on internal matters in a variety of nations, including allies Israel, South Korea and the U.K.”
Media reports have downplayed the most explosive component of the documents: The fact that US and NATO troops are on the ground in Ukraine, and that the US is leading and coordinating the planned Ukrainian offensive.
Instead, they have focused on tracking down the supposed source of the leak and the efforts by the Pentagon to find them.
The entire US media has engaged in systematic self-censorship. They have refused to publish the documents, or even excerpts of them, despite the fact that they show massive lying and criminality by the Biden administration in waging an illegal and undeclared war.
This is entirely in keeping with the role of the US print and broadcast media, which has over the past year unleashed a torrent of war propaganda, at the same time calling for ever-greater US involvement while concealing the massive role US and NATO are playing in the war.
In other words, the world has been led to the brink of nuclear war, on the basis of complete fabrications by the government and the media.
While the release of the documents may have been motivated by dissatisfaction within the US military over the conduct of the war, the case could be made that a deeper intention in releasing the documents is to build support for a military escalation.
Already, the US media is hard at work turning the leaks into an argument for even greater US military intervention. “Leaked Documents Suggest Ukrainian Air Defense Is in Peril if Not Reinforced,” writes the New York Times. “A huge influx of munitions is needed to keep Russia’s air force from changing the course of the war.”
The leaked documents appear as the US is preparing an even deeper involvement in the conflict. Whether or not the plans for a spring offensive outlined in the documents materialize, the US and NATO are planning a massive deployment of forces to the NATO states bordering Russia following the accession of Finland into the alliance.
On March 18, Politico reported, “In the coming months, the alliance will accelerate efforts to stockpile equipment along the alliance’s eastern edge and designate tens of thousands of forces that can rush to allies’ aid on short notice… The numbers will be large, with officials floating the idea of up to 300,000 NATO forces.”
Ultimately, the systematic lies by the government and media about the war are aimed at misleading the “enemy at home,” the working class, which is being dragged into a bloodbath.
These documents show that a US war against Russia has been initiated entirely behind the backs of the public. The obvious conclusion is that, if the US decides it is necessary to send NATO troops directly into Ukraine, it will do so using the same methods it has deployed so far: A systematic campaign of media lies and manipulation.
On April 8, WSWS International Editorial Board Chairman David North published a statement entitled “Forward to May Day 2023! Build a mass movement of workers and youth against war and for socialism!” It explained:
Two processes dominate this year’s celebration of the international unity of the working class: the war in Ukraine, which is escalating toward a global conflagration, and an international resurgence of the class struggle. These two processes are profoundly related. The same economic, geopolitical and social contradictions that drive the imperialist ruling elites onto the path of war provide the objective impulse for the radicalization of the working class and the outbreak of revolutionary struggles.
The online rally, sponsored by the International Committee of the Fourth International, the International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality and the World Socialist Web Site, will be held on April 30. We urge all of those who seek to oppose the escalation of the war to register today.
3). “Pentagon leak shows perils of spying on your friends”, Apr. 13, 2023, Adam Taylor, 1,254 words, Washington Post.
Byline: Adam Taylor
A huge leak of Pentagon documents uncovered over the past week has revealed how deeply the United States has penetrated Russia and other rivals. But it is also a reminder that the United States spies on its allies as a matter of routine - a practice that has risks for both Washington and friends alike.
There is no shortage of unflattering revelations. The documents paint a pessimistic picture of Ukraine's upcoming spring counteroffensive and point to potential problems in air defense and artillery. One report suggests that South Korea balked at supplying weapons to Ukraine. A separate document claims Egypt secretly planned to supply rockets to Russia, while another says NATO ally Turkey was approached by Russia's notorious Wagner Group, a private military contractor, to help procure supplies.
The topics go far beyond Ukraine, too: One assessment claimed that Israel's famous spy agency Mossad had supported anti-government protests, despite its claims of political neutrality.
Taken together, the documents suggest that even after the controversy surrounding the National Security Agency leaks released by Edward Snowden a decade ago, the United States is still secretly collecting information about its allies. The bizarre spread of the documents - apparently first being shared between obscure meme groups on the chat app Discord - shows that the interconnectedness that enables this surveillance may be too chaotic to be fully enclosed.
My Washington Post colleagues Shane Harris and Samuel Oakford reported Wednesday that the man behind the leak is a young, charismatic gun enthusiast who shared the highly sensitive documents with a group of acquaintances searching for companionship on a Discord server he controlled, according to group members. The poster, who some call "OG," said he spent hours transcribing classified documents from his job on a "military base" to share with the group, a Discord group member told The Washington Post. OG then began posting photos of the documents themselves.
"In those initial posts, OG had given his fellow members a small sip of the torrent of secrets that was to come. When rendering hundreds of classified files by hand proved too tiresome, he began posting hundreds of photos of documents themselves," Oakford and Harris wrote. Many of the documents traversed subjects so sensitive that only people who had undergone months-long background checks would be authorized to see them, they added.
"If you could think it, it was in those documents," said the Discord group member, who spoke to The Post on the condition of anonymity. He is under 18 and was a young teenager when he met OG. The Post obtained consent from his mother to speak to him and to record his remarks on video, Oakford and Harris wrote.
Yes, some of the revelations themselves are not exactly a surprise. You don't need espionage to understand that Viktor Orban has a negative view of the United States, for example, even if Hungary is a NATO ally. But others have left foreign governments reeling. And there is likely much more to come.
The allegations of arms dealing with Russia have resulted in awkward silence from Turkey and selective denials from Egypt. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials have publicly cast doubt on the downbeat assessment in the documents, with presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak writing on Telegram last week that the reports contained "fictitious information" - though privately, some Ukrainian officials have said they recognize the picture they paint.
In South Korea, the government of President Yoon Suk Yeol suggested that the allegations in the documents were "untrue" and claimed that some of the information included was "altered." In Israel, Mossad released a rare statement that emphasized its political neutrality, while some analysts wondered if the United States had over-interpreted a letter signed by former intelligence agents and others.
But both the reports on South Korea and Israel specifically cite "signals intelligence," which refers to information derived from electronic signals such as communications systems. It is not clear whether the United States is surveilling the communications of Mossad leaders, but the leak suggests it is a possibility.
In South Korea, the suggestion that the communication of the National Security Council was intercepted also touched on domestic political scandals. Yoon made the unorthodox decision to move the presidential office out of its historic home, the Blue House, last year. Some opposition figures now suggest he has opened the office up to a greater risk of surveillance.
By tradition, there is no taboo against spying on friendly nations. Some nations, such as the Five Eyes alliance of Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, have essentially agreed not to spy on each other. However, overall there is no codified international agreement on the issue and few norms.
The changing nature of global communication, however, has made the issue much more pressing. Communication interception used to be such a mammoth task that resources would almost entirely point at major adversaries. Now, U.S. dominance of the global technology and digital communication market allows the possibility for an enormous amount of information gathering with minimal effort.
In 2013, data released by NSA whistleblower Snowden disclosed U.S. surveillance of the cellphone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the email account of Mexican President Felipe Calderón. Dozens of world leaders were later found to have been targeted.
The revelations prompted diplomatic anger. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff canceled a trip to Washington after it was revealed her phone was being tracked, while the revelations about Merkel soured U.S.-Germany relations for years.
President Barack Obama did what you might expect after angering a friend: He apologized. He appeared on German television and told the nation that "as I am president of the United States, the chancellor of Germany will not have to worry about this." But in the end, that appeared to be a personal pledge, rather than government policy.
So far, the global backlash about the recent document leak doesn't match the one seen after the NSA leak. But there are still many more documents that have not yet been reported on, with more revelations that could create anger. And while the scale of the leak is smaller than other recent leaks, the detailed nature of the information released could be particularly damaging.
For Ukraine, there may be a reckoning. The leak of many documents about the condition of Ukraine's military and its capabilities could force commanders to alter plans ahead of an already delayed counteroffensive. This could further damage relations between Kyiv and Washington, already tested after a year of fighting, at a pivotal moment.
Even some of the United States' closest partners - those in the Five Eyes intelligence sharing club - have a reason for concern, despite not being directly spied on. The documents detail numerous examples of British activity around Ukraine, including an incident where a Russian fighter jet nearly shot down a U.K. surveillance plane last year - an event that the British government had only described in far vaguer terms.
Russia is relishing the situation. "The leaks are quite interesting," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters Monday, adding that it was already known that the United States spied on "various heads of state, especially in European capitals."
The fact that the leak appeared to not be a malicious foreign act, but one from a man who just wanted to share them with his friends for fun, points to a more fundamental problem with the nation's classified intelligence gathering: The United States is simply collecting too much information, and sharing it with too many people, for it all to remain secret.
4). “The West Needs a New Strategy in Ukraine: A Plan for Getting From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table”, April 13, 2023, Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan, Foreign Affairs, at <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russia-richard-haass-west-battlefield-negotiations>
21–27 minutes
After just over a year, the war in Ukraine has turned out far better for Ukraine than most predicted. Russia’s effort to subjugate its neighbor has failed. Ukraine remains an independent, sovereign, functioning democracy, holding on to roughly 85 percent of the territory it controlled before Russia’s 2014 invasion. At the same time, it is difficult to feel sanguine about where the war is headed. The human and economic costs, already enormous, are poised to climb as both Moscow and Kyiv ready their next moves on the battlefield. The Russian military’s numerical superiority likely gives it the ability to counter Ukraine’s greater operational skill and morale, as well as its access to Western support. Accordingly, the most likely outcome of the conflict is not a complete Ukrainian victory but a bloody stalemate.
Against this backdrop, calls for a diplomatic end to the conflict are understandably growing. But with Moscow and Kyiv both vowing to keep up the fight, conditions are not yet ripe for a negotiated settlement. Russia seems determined to occupy a larger chunk of the Donbas. Ukraine appears to be preparing an assault to break the land bridge between the Donbas and Crimea, clearing the way, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky often asserts, for Ukraine to fully expel Russian forces and restore its territorial integrity.
The West needs an approach that recognizes these realities without sacrificing its principles. The best path forward is a sequenced two-pronged strategy aimed at first bolstering Ukraine’s military capability and then, when the fighting season winds down late this year, ushering Moscow and Kyiv from the battlefield to the negotiating table. The West should start by immediately expediting the flow of weapons to Ukraine and increasing their quantity and quality. The goal should be to bolster Ukraine’s defenses while making its coming offensive as successful as possible, imposing heavy losses on Russia, foreclosing Moscow’s military options, and increasing its willingness to contemplate a diplomatic settlement. By the time Ukraine’s anticipated offensive is over, Kyiv may also warm up to the idea of a negotiated settlement, having given its best shot on the battlefield and facing growing constraints on both its own manpower and help from abroad.
The second prong of the West’s strategy should be to roll out later this year a plan for brokering a cease-fire and a follow-on peace process aimed at permanently ending the conflict. This diplomatic gambit may well fail. Even if Russia and Ukraine continue to take significant losses, one or both of them may prefer to keep fighting. But as the war’s costs mount and the prospect of a military stalemate looms, it is worth pressing for a durable truce, one that could prevent renewed conflict and, even better, set the stage for a lasting peace.
THE WAR THAT WILL NOT END
For now, a diplomatic resolution to the conflict is out of reach. Russian President Vladimir Putin likely worries that if he stops fighting now, Russians will fault him for launching a costly, futile war. After all, Russian forces do not completely control any of the four oblasts that Moscow unilaterally annexed last September, NATO has grown bigger and stronger, and Ukraine is more alienated than ever from Russia. Putin seems to believe that time is on his side, calculating that he can ride out economic sanctions, which have failed to strangle the Russian economy, and maintain popular support for the war, an operation that, according to polls from the Levada Center, more than 70 percent of Russians still back. Putin doubts the staying power of Ukraine and its Western supporters, expecting that their resolve will wane. And he surely calculates that as his new conscripts enter the fight, Russia should be able to expand its territorial gains, allowing him to declare that he has substantially expanded Russia’s borders when the fighting stops.
Ukraine is also in no mood to settle. The country’s leadership and public alike understandably seek to regain control of all the territory Russia has occupied since 2014, including Crimea. Ukrainians also want to hold Moscow accountable for Russian forces’ war crimes and make it pay for the immense costs of reconstruction. Besides, Kyiv has good reason to doubt whether Putin can be trusted to abide by any peace deal. Rather than looking to the West for diplomatic intervention, then, Ukrainian leaders are asking for more military and economic help. The United States and Europe have provided considerable intelligence, training, and hardware, but they have held off providing military systems of even greater capability, such as long-range missiles and advanced aircraft, for fear that doing so would provoke Russia to escalate, whether by using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine or deliberately attacking the troops or territory of a NATO member.
Although Washington is right to keep a watchful eye on the risk of escalation, its concerns are overblown. Western policy is caught between the goals of preventing catastrophic failure (in which an under-armed Ukraine is swallowed by Russia) and catastrophic success (in which an over-armed Ukraine leads a cornered Putin to escalate). But it is difficult to see what Russia would gain from escalation. Expanding the war by attacking a NATO member would not be in Russia’s interests, since the country is having a hard enough time fighting Ukraine alone, and its forces are severely depleted after a year of war. Nor would using nuclear weapons serve it well. A nuclear attack would likely prompt NATO to enter the war directly and decimate Russian positions throughout Ukraine. It could also alienate China and India, both of which have warned Russia against the use of nuclear weapons.
But the implausibility of nuclear use isn’t the only reason the West should discount Russia’s posturing; giving in to nuclear blackmail would also signal to other countries that such threats work, setting back the nonproliferation agenda and weakening deterrence. China, for instance, might conclude that nuclear threats can deter the United States from coming to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a Chinese attack.
(Caption: A destroyed vehicle in Chasiv Yar, Ukraine, April 2023, Kai Pfaffenbach / Reuters)
It is thus time for the West to stop deterring itself and start giving Ukraine the tanks, long-range missiles, and other weapons it needs to wrest back control of more of its territory in the coming months. European countries have begun to deliver Leopard tanks, and the United States has pledged 31 Abrams tanks, which are scheduled to arrive in the fall. But both sides of the Atlantic should increase the size and the tempo of deliveries. More tanks would enhance Ukrainian forces’ ability to punch through Russia’s defensive lines in Ukraine’s south. Long-range missiles—namely, the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, which the United States has so far refused to provide—would allow Ukraine to hit Russian positions, command posts, and ammunition depots deep in Russian-held territory, preparing the way for a more successful Ukrainian offensive. The U.S. military should also begin training Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s. Training would take time, but starting it now would allow the United States to deliver advanced aircraft when the pilots are ready, sending a signal to Russia that Ukraine’s ability to wage war is on an upward trajectory.
Yet for all the good that greater Western military help would do, it is unlikely to change the fundamental reality that this war is headed for stalemate. It is of course possible that Ukraine’s coming offensive proves stunningly successful and allows the country to reclaim all occupied territory, including Crimea, resulting in a complete Russian defeat. But such an outcome is improbable. Even if the West steps up its military assistance, Ukraine is poised to fall well short of vanquishing Russian forces. It is running out of soldiers and ammunition, and its economy continues to deteriorate. Russian troops are dug in, and fresh recruits are heading to the front.
Moreover, if Moscow’s military position were to become precarious, it is quite possible that China would provide arms to Russia, whether directly or through third countries. Chinese President Xi Jinping has made a big, long-term wager on Putin and will not stand idly by as Russia suffers a decisive loss. Xi’s visit to Moscow in March strongly suggests that he is doubling down on his partnership with Putin, not backing away from it. Xi might also calculate that the risks of providing military assistance to Russia are modest. After all, his country is already decoupling from the West, and U.S. policy toward China seems destined to get tougher regardless of how much Beijing supports Moscow.
Ramping up the provision of military assistance to Ukraine, while it will help Ukrainian forces make progress on the battlefield, thus holds little promise of enabling Kyiv to restore full territorial integrity. Later this year, a stalemate is likely to emerge along a new line of contact. When that happens, an obvious question will arise: What next?
AFTER STALEMATE
More of the same makes little sense. Even from Ukraine’s perspective, it would be unwise to keep doggedly pursuing a full military victory that could prove Pyrrhic. Ukrainian forces have already suffered over 100,000 casualties and lost many of their best troops. The Ukrainian economy has shrunk by some 30 percent, the poverty rate is spiking, and Russia continues to bombard the country’s critical infrastructure. Around eight million Ukrainians have fled the country, with millions more internally displaced. Ukraine should not risk destroying itself in pursuit of goals that are likely out of reach.
Come the end of this fighting season, the United States and Europe will also have good reason to abandon their stated policy of supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” as U.S. President Joe Biden has put it. Maintaining Ukraine’s existence as a sovereign and secure democracy is a priority, but achieving that goal does not require the country to recover full control of Crimea and the Donbas in the near term. Nor should the West worry that pushing for a cease-fire before Kyiv reclaims all its territory will cause the rules-based international order to crumble. Ukrainian fortitude and Western resolve have already rebuffed Russia’s effort to subjugate Ukraine, dealt Moscow a decisive strategic defeat, and demonstrated to other would-be revisionists that pursuing territorial conquest can be a costly and vexing enterprise. Yes, it is critical to minimize Russian gains and demonstrate that aggression doesn’t pay, but this goal must be weighed against other priorities.
The reality is that continued large-scale support of Kyiv carries broader strategic risks. The war is eroding the West’s military readiness and depleting its weapons stockpiles; the defense industrial base cannot keep up with Ukraine’s expenditure of equipment and ammunition. NATO countries cannot discount the possibility of direct hostilities with Russia, and the United States must prepare for potential military action in Asia (to deter or respond to any Chinese move against Taiwan) and in the Middle East (against Iran or terrorist networks).
The war is imposing high costs on the global economy, as well. It has disrupted supply chains, contributing to high inflation and energy and food shortages. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that the war will reduce global economic output by $2.8 trillion in 2023. From France to Egypt to Peru, economic duress is triggering political unrest. The war is also polarizing the international system. As geopolitical rivalry between the Western democracies and a Chinese-Russian coalition augurs the return of a two-bloc world, most of the rest of the globe is sitting on the sidelines, preferring nonalignment to ensnarement in a new era of East-West rivalry. Disorder is radiating outward from the war in Ukraine.
Against this backdrop, neither Ukraine nor its NATO supporters can take Western unity for granted. American resolve is crucial for European staying power, but Washington faces mounting political pressure to reduce spending, rebuild U.S. readiness, and bulk up its capabilities in Asia. Now that Republicans control the House of Representatives, it will be harder for the Biden administration to secure sizable aid packages for Ukraine. And policy toward Ukraine could change significantly should Republicans win the White House in the 2024 election. It is time to ready a Plan B.
GETTING TO YES
Given the likely trajectory of the war, the United States and its partners need to begin formulating a diplomatic endgame now. Even as NATO members ramp up military assistance in support of Ukraine’s coming offensive, Washington should start consultations with its European allies and with Kyiv on a diplomatic initiative to be launched later in the year.
Under this approach, Ukraine’s Western supporters would propose a cease-fire as Ukraine’s coming offensive reaches its limits. Ideally, both Ukraine and Russia would pull back their troops and heavy weapons from the new line of contact, effectively creating a demilitarized zone. A neutral organization—either the UN or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe—would send in observers to monitor and enforce the cease-fire and pullback. The West should approach other influential countries, including China and India, to support the cease-fire proposal. Doing so would complicate diplomacy, but getting buy-in from Beijing and New Delhi would increase the pressure on the Kremlin. In the event that China refused to support the cease-fire, Xi’s ongoing calls for a diplomatic offensive would be exposed as an empty gesture.
Assuming a cease-fire holds, peace talks should follow. Such talks should occur along two parallel tracks. On one track would be direct talks between Ukraine and Russia, facilitated by international mediators, on the terms of peace. On the second track, NATO allies would start a strategic dialogue with Russia on arms control and the broader European security architecture. Putin’s effort to undo the post–Cold War security order has backfired and ended up strengthening NATO. But that reality only increases the need for NATO and Russia to begin a constructive dialogue to prevent a new arms race, rebuild military-to-military contacts, and address other issues of common concern, including nuclear proliferation. The “2 plus 4” talks that helped end the Cold War provide a good precedent for this approach. East and West Germany negotiated their unification directly, while the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union negotiated the broader post–Cold War security architecture.
Provided that Ukraine makes battlefield gains this summer, it is at least plausible that Putin would view a cease-fire and peace plan as a face-saving off-ramp. To make this approach even more enticing, the West could also offer some limited relief from sanctions in return for Russia’s willingness to abide by a cease-fire, agree to a demilitarized zone, and participate meaningfully in peace talks. It is of course conceivable that Putin would reject a cease-fire—or accept it only for the purpose of rebuilding his military and making a later run at conquering Ukraine. But little would be lost by testing Moscow’s readiness for compromise. Regardless of Russia’s response, the West would continue to provide the arms Ukraine needs to defend itself over the long term and make sure that any pause in the fighting did not work to Russia’s advantage. And if Russia rejected a cease-fire (or accepted one and then violated it), its intransigence would deepen its diplomatic isolation, shore up the sanctions regime, and strengthen support for Ukraine in the United States and Europe.
Another plausible outcome is that Russia would agree to a cease-fire in order to pocket its remaining territorial gains but in fact has no intention of negotiating in good faith to secure a lasting peace settlement. Presumably, Ukraine would enter such negotiations by demanding its top priorities: the restoration of its 1991 borders, substantial reparations, and accountability for war crimes. But because Putin would surely reject these demands out of hand, a prolonged diplomatic stalemate would then emerge, effectively producing a new frozen conflict. Ideally, the cease-fire would hold, leading to a status quo like the one that prevails on the Korean Peninsula, which has remained largely stable without a formal peace pact for 70 years. Cyprus has similarly been divided but stable for decades. This is not an ideal outcome, but it is preferable to a high-intensity war that continues for years.
CONVINCING KYIV
Persuading Kyiv to go along with a cease-fire and uncertain diplomatic effort could be no less challenging than getting Moscow to do so. Many Ukrainians would see this proposal as a sellout and fear that the cease-fire lines would merely become new de facto borders. Zelensky would need to dramatically scale back his war aims after having promised victory since the early months of the war—no easy task for even the most talented of politicians.
But Kyiv may ultimately find much to like in the plan. Even though the end of fighting would freeze in place a new line of contact between Russia and Ukraine, Kyiv would not be asked or pressured to give up the goal of taking back all of its land, including Crimea and the Donbas. Rather, the plan would be to defer settling the status of the land and people still under Russian occupation. Kyiv would forgo an attempt to retake these territories by force now, a gambit that would surely be costly but is likely to fail, instead accepting that the recovery of territorial integrity must await a diplomatic breakthrough. A breakthrough, in turn, may be possible only after Putin is no longer in power. In the meantime, Western governments could promise to fully lift sanctions against Russia and normalize relations with it only if Moscow signed a peace agreement that was acceptable to Kyiv.
This formula thus blends strategic pragmatism with political principle. Peace in Ukraine cannot be held hostage to war aims that, however morally justified, are likely unattainable. At the same time, the West should not reward Russian aggression by compelling Ukraine to permanently accept the loss of territory by force. Ending the war while deferring the ultimate disposition of land still under Russian occupation is the solution.
Under the best of circumstances, Ukrainians have tough days ahead of them.
Even if a cease-fire held and a diplomatic process got underway, NATO countries should continue to arm Ukraine, removing any doubts in Kyiv that its compliance with a diplomatic roadmap would mean the end of military support. Moreover, the United States could make clear to Kyiv that if Putin violated the cease-fire while Ukraine honored it, Washington would further step up the flow of arms and waive restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to target military positions inside Russia from which attacks are being launched. Should Putin spurn a clear opportunity to end the war, Western governments would win renewed public favor for providing such additional support to Ukraine.
As another incentive to Ukraine, the West should offer it a formalized security pact. Although NATO is unlikely to offer membership to Ukraine—a consensus within the alliance appears out of reach for now—a subset of NATO members, including the United States, could conclude a security agreement with Ukraine that pledges it adequate means of self-defense. This security pact, although it would fall short of an ironclad security guarantee, might resemble Israel’s defense relationship with the United States or the relationship that Finland and Sweden enjoyed with NATO before they decided to join the alliance. The pact might also include a provision similar to Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which calls for consultations when any party judges its territorial integrity, political independence, or security to be threatened.
Alongside this security pact, the EU should craft a long-term economic support pact and propose a timetable for admission to the EU, guaranteeing Ukraine that it is on the path toward full integration into the union. Under the best of circumstances, Ukrainians have tough days ahead of them; EU membership would offer them the light at the end of the tunnel that they so deserve to see.
Even with these inducements, Ukraine might still refuse the call for a cease-fire. If so, it would hardly be the first time in history that a partner dependent on U.S. support balked at being pressured to scale back its objectives. But if Kyiv did balk, the political reality is that support for Ukraine could not be sustained in the United States and Europe, especially if Russia were to accept the cease-fire. Ukraine would have little choice but to accede to a policy that gave it the economic and military support needed to secure the territory under its control—the vast majority of the country—while taking off the table the liberation by force of those territories still under Russian occupation. Moreover, the West would continue to use sanctions and diplomatic leverage to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity—but at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield.
A WAY OUT
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment