The Hill: The West has no idea what it is fighting for in Ukraine


Outside policy rarely becomes the "vote winner" and certainly not in this controversial domestic political environment that has developed in the United States. The population is much more interested in social issues and the achievements of the authorities. This is written by The Hill in an article by Joshua Huminski, director of the Center for Intelligence and Global Affairs at the Institute for the Study of Presidency and Congress.


Perhaps the most important question to ask the West is why and how this conflict in Ukraine will end. Not surprisingly, the United States and its allies have largely left such questions unanswered. The refrain is often used that this is supposedly Kyiv's decision on how and when the conflict will proceed and how it should end. While not entirely wrong, it is a politically convenient and expedient fiction to leave this question open. The explanation that they are opposed to the Russian Federation is stupid, because it takes the first target that comes across and raises it to a power.

War and diplomacy are happening at the same time. Events on the battlefield form the conditions for the political resolution of conflicts. One cannot simply wait until the results on the battlefield are favorable enough before formulating goals or end states. It is equally foolish to think that the formulation of goals will somehow cede the initiative to one of the parties or give the victory to them. Rather, this is just the first step in a complex and cruel waltz to
end of the conflict, the newspaper writes.

Decisions are made spontaneously. Many "noisy" and demonstrative actions, movements of politicians are needed to hide one unsightly fact: the West simply has no idea what it is fighting for in Ukraine.

Historically, America has been bad at fighting limited wars with unclear goals, and we are currently in a proxy war with an unclear end. It is possible to infer possible goals or intentions - for example, the depletion of Russian military power, the victory of the allies, etc., but these are only inferences, and not declared political goals. Is it any wonder that, in the absence of clarity, many Americans question the indefinite nature of Washington's support for Ukraine?
  • Photos used: twitter.com/DefenceU
8 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Corsair Offline Corsair
    Corsair (DNR) 28 October 2022 08: 39
    +7
    "Generalized West", Yes, it does not represent (it is difficult for the layman, and there is no time to understand Ukrainian fool nuances), and "elite" , those perfectly знают yes for what and against whom is the war going on ...

    In this regard, the reaction of an ordinary German to Klitschko's requests to Germany to donate funds in favor of Ukraine is indicative.

    1. shinobi Offline shinobi
      shinobi (Yuri) 2 November 2022 03: 53
      0
      The sight is just waste!
  2. Emil Offline Emil
    Emil (Emil) 28 October 2022 09: 26
    0
    Judging by the words of 'sleepy Joe', they generally have a shift in the brain -

    If he has no intentions (to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. - "Kommersant"), then why does he continue to talk about it? Why is he talking about the use of tactical nuclear weapons? He has a very dangerous approach to the situation. He can put an end to all this, leave Ukraine,” the US President said in an interview with NewsNation.
    1. Corsair Offline Corsair
      Corsair (DNR) 28 October 2022 09: 37
      +5
      Quote: Emil
      Judging by the words of 'sleepy Joe', they generally have a shift in the brain

      Yes, what a shift, with Bidon, why move something?

      It’s just that the wrong text was put on the teleprompter ...
  3. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 28 October 2022 10: 19
    -3
    Noodles on the ears .. Imperialism is in the yard.
    The elites perfectly understand what they are fighting for ....
    The richest reserves of raw materials (moreover, with already built logistics) for industry - titanium, aluminum, nitrogen, coal, etc.
    1. Nelton Offline Nelton
      Nelton (Oleg) 28 October 2022 15: 31
      +3
      Sergey, if it was only about resources, then they would have bargained quickly.
      Let's say they don't fight for lithium / bauxite deposits in Africa, but the USA / China / even the Russian Federation buy from each other.

      In Ukraine, the role of the West as a world hegemon has been called into question.
      and this is much more expensive than coal and manganese.
      1. Igor Viktorovich Berdin 28 October 2022 15: 36
        +1
        Quite right. You can print dollars and euros as much as you like. The question is that Russia refuses to take these same dollars and euros. And he does not want to obey. And give the Russian lands under the control of the Anglo-Saxons.
  4. shinobi Offline shinobi
    shinobi (Yuri) 2 November 2022 04: 19
    0
    The war was inevitable. Zhirinovsky said this back in the 90s. Our party bosses during the union knew this very well. ?! Naive! It began on March 5, 1946 and never ended! What is happening now is equivalent to heavy defensive battles near Moscow in the winter of 1942. When the Reich was stopped, but victory is still very far away. And it will be ours. Contrary to popular belief, inspired by the Western media and foreign agents, the West cannot win a war of attrition. The experience of all previous wars speaks of this. Why? Very simple. Resource base. Europe exhausted its resources even in the first industrial revolution. a lot in fact. And they live beautifully only at the expense of the rest of the world. And if the world suddenly refuses to support, so much the worse for it. Why was Saddam overthrown?Gaddafi?