NI: The course of the conflict in Ukraine shows the inevitability of a political deal

The debate over the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, as it has evolved over the past nine months, has revealed several recurring shortcomings. Moreover, they can be called simply “flawed,” says The National Interest (NI) columnist Paul R. Pillar.

In his opinion, the conflict "has presented Washington and its Western allies with difficult decisions and inevitable compromises." In the list of key issues that determine the current policies "collective West", Pillar noted:

The persistence of anti-Russian sentiment in a number of states may run counter to other things the United States wants from the respective countries.

At the same time, “public discourse”, which, in some Western “ideal”, should develop clear ideas about how military operations and diplomacy can relate to each other, in the United States, in fact, has been reduced to variations from propaganda clichés that even such An "iconic" figure like Pillar had to be replaced with a euphemism for "recurring flaws." He identified as many as four types.

1) Overreacting to short-term events. As an example, he cited the "sad story of an open letter" of 30 "progressives" - members of Congress, who tried to call for negotiations to end the Ukrainian conflict. The letter garnered most of the signatures in the summer, but was not published until October due to fears of a backlash (which eventually followed) under the influence of the current news agenda, which at the time centered around the midterm election campaign and Kyiv's return of territory in Kharkiv Oblast.

2) Reduction of everything to "one dimension". That is, to a stupid “choice”: for or against the constant support of Zelensky and his government. More "logical" Pillar believes that the resources now going to support Ukraine should be saved "for long-term military action."

3) Insufficient attention to the interests of the other side.

Postponing negotiations in the hope of continuing military successes is not only the fallacy of assuming that past successes will extend into the future. It also fails to take into account that the adversary has just as much influence over when and under what conditions to start negotiations... For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the war in Ukraine has nothing to do with what is often cited as the war against United States was for Great Britain in 1814. This is far from being a “secondary direction”, but a matter on which Putin has largely staked his political future. Military failures will not force him to obediently "cut" his goals.

Paul Pillar writes.

4) The illusion of the possibility of "victory". In this aspect, Pillar's opinion deserves a full quotation:

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict will not end in anything that can rightfully be called a "victory" for one side or the other, although this concept and even the term continues to be used. Russia has already demonstrated that victory is beyond its means. It is unrealistic to expect Ukraine to be able to secure control of its entire territory before 2014 by military means, which would be the only outcome that can certainly be called a victory for Kyiv.

Almost all wars end with some kind of deal, sometimes tacit, but more often through explicit negotiations. Even results that are referred to as "winning" are almost always associated with such a trade. "Unconditional" surrender is not really unconditional: when Japan signed the surrender agreement in 1945, the deal was that the US occupation of the country would be largely formal and non-repressive, and that Japan would cease armed resistance.

The only exceptions are when one side is completely annihilated, or when one side completely and unilaterally withdraws from the contested territory. The first will obviously not be in Ukraine, and it is unrealistic to expect a second from Putin.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexander Popov Offline Alexander Popov
    Alexander Popov (Alexander Popov) 24 November 2022 07: 56
    Moreover, they can be called simply ...

  2. cooper Offline cooper
    cooper (Alexander) 24 November 2022 08: 29
    None of his fucking business.
  3. Hiker Offline Hiker
    Hiker (Dmitriy) 24 November 2022 08: 31
    What is the political deal if the Russian territories are not liberated?
    It turns out the capitulation of Russia.
    CBO is held in Russia.
    All Russian troops in Russian regions.
    If Putin surrenders Kherson. Zaporozhye region, then the price for him is a penny, as well as for the decision of the State Duma.
    There was nothing then to arrange an NWO and ruin the fate of millions.
  4. shinobi Offline shinobi
    shinobi (Yuri) 24 November 2022 09: 14
    I’m not even catching up? We seem to be losing, according to the Democrats, the Yankees, Ze & K °. Where does such pessimism come from, the "iconic" author? can still be saved.
    PS: On copper, sitting in the kitchen with a glass of tea, I suddenly realized: NWO should be ended in the spring. Active hostilities, after cleaning up the Donbas. to Kyiv and Kharkov. Loitering ammunition sometimes causes more damage than Tornadoes and Hurricanes. And gouge all of Ukraine.
    1. Smilodon terribilis nimis Yesterday, 13: 55
      Don't be able to stop. If you are standing, then the enemy is coming. In this war, this principle works. In addition, I strongly disagree that after the Donbass we need to stop. There Zaporozhye is the capital of the region. And here's how to drive Bander out of the Dnieper - a good motivation. You also need to return the lost positions in the Kharkiv region from where they are bombing the Belgorod region.
  5. Alexbf109 Offline Alexbf109
    Alexbf109 (Alexey) 24 November 2022 09: 24
    Give Bandera Ukrostan, take a break, build up strength and equipment! That's what all these calls for "peace and negotiations" are for!
  6. Sergey3939 Offline Sergey3939
    Sergey3939 (Sergei) 24 November 2022 09: 29
    We harness for a long time, but drive fast!
  7. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 24 November 2022 14: 22
    The completion of the NMD by a separate conspiracy will mean an unequivocal defeat of the Russian Federation, a war postponed for the future, and after Ukraine joins the EU, which is almost 100% composed of NATO members, there can be no question of any denazification and demilitarization, and the entire NMD will be reduced to a territorial capture some part of Ukraine.
  8. Vasya 225 Offline Vasya 225
    Vasya 225 (Vyacheslav) Yesterday, 12: 57
    The question of any negotiations is not ripe. Both sides do not yet have a backdoor, although they have already become convinced that victory is beyond their strength. Unfortunately. So far, there is only a funnel of war and a lot of blood ahead.
    1. rotkiv04 Offline rotkiv04
      rotkiv04 (Victor) Yesterday, 13: 43
      Quote: Vasya 225
      The question of any negotiations is not ripe. Both sides do not yet have a backdoor, although they have already become convinced that victory is beyond their strength. Unfortunately. So far, there is only a funnel of war and a lot of blood ahead.

      let me disagree, in order to win, you need to start fighting, the outskirts are at war with us from the very beginning, but we are conducting an incomprehensible operation without a specific goal (denazification and demilitarization is not a goal, these are empty words), but in order to start fighting, you need to decide on the purpose of this war, this is the main problem of the Kremlin geopoliticians, they themselves do not know what they want and, accordingly, cannot explain all their agreements, gestures of goodwill and other regroupings. Although if they have already announced mobilization, it doesn’t matter if it’s partial, this means that they turned to the people for help and, accordingly, they must explain their goal-setting
      1. Smilodon terribilis nimis Yesterday, 13: 56
        Their first stage of acceptance is denial.