Presidential candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris says she will not talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin without Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.
Ukraine’s war, which is NATO’s war, is going badly. NATO’s future is in doubt.
Meanwhile, Volodymyr Zelensky, who was just forced to cancel a forthcoming “peace summit” (officially postponed to a future time) because no one wanted to come, has made it clear he will not negotiate with Moscow under any circumstances.
Zelensky understands that any concession he might make to Russia would be fatal for him. As his army is beginning to disintegrate, Zelensky is relying on the Azov Brigade, an elite unit that some say is trying to wipe clean a neo-Nazi ideological stain from its predecessor unit’s history. Because Zelensky is unlikely to move, various “peace formulas” being floated in Europe won’t change anything or influence the outcome.
The basic Euro-idea is to try and freeze the conflict, concede that Russia will continue to occupy parts of Ukraine for now and bring Ukraine into NATO – or, if that isn’t possible, provide some other sort of security guarantees for the future.
Under this approach, Ukraine could rebuild its military, gets its economy back on track, and confront the Russians some years in the future when the prospects are better.
The Russians don’t have to reject the latest idea because, thanks to Zelensky, it is dead on arrival. Of course that won’t stop Europe and some in Washington from pushing the proposal anyway, while shoveling more arms to Ukraine, hoping the Ukrainians can hold out until well after the US elections.
Should Ukraine go belly up before the end of October, it would be chaos for the Democrats in the US and also would likely collapse the German government, perhaps even the shaky French regime. Most experts don’t think that will happen. But most experts often are wrong.
Meanwhile, for their part the Russians won’t accept a ceasefire in place since it offers them nothing. The Russians clearly want Ukraine to be demilitarized and neutral, and they probably won’t accept NATO-led security guarantees (although Russian public statements are ambiguous). Officially Russia wants Luhansk, Donbas, Zaphorize, and the Crimea recognized (all have been annexed to Russia), and it demands protection of Russian-speakers in Ukraine.
There is little or no prospect that Russia’s demands will be met, neither by the current Ukrainian government or by most NATO countries. For that reason, the Zelensky hard line, so long as it lasts, assures that Russia’s real goal will be to replace Ukraine’s government altogether with one favorable to Russia and willing to agree to Moscow’s claims.
If the Russians can pull it off, then NATO will have to retrench, something it must do anyway if the alliance is to retain any credibility. Unfortunately, despite a lot of bravado, the chance to revitalize NATO as a military alliance does not look promising.
There are profound reasons why NATO is floundering, despite appearances. The biggest reason of all is that NATO has been expanding without paying attention to its need to be a credible defensive alliance.
Ukraine is part of that expansion, and under US and EU pressure, the expansion is spreading to the South Caucasus, as far as Armenia.
A greater NATO is an alliance without defensible borders, as is increasingly obvious. That is why Ukraine is getting chewed up, despite Western arsenals having been emptied in the effort to save it. The Russians won’t neglect the South Caucasus including Armenia when the time comes
It is regrettable that NATO has talked itself into this mess. NATO today is about expansion, not defense. When it comes to defense, NATO is utterly reliant on the United States and the commitment to send the US Army, Air Force and Navy to defend NATO expansion.
NATO expansion as a policy requires vast military commitments by America’s allies. That won’t happen. It is fair to ask: What does the US gain by supporting an expansionist NATO policy? There is growing unease in the United States about the hundreds of billions wasted on Ukraine, with no settlement now possible. At some point that policy will result in a major walk-back from the NATO alliance, and from any commitment to defend Europe when it really does little to defend itself.
Stephen Bryen served as staff director of a subcommittee of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.
This article was originally published on his Substack, Weapons and Strategy. It is republished with permission.
Oh so now it’s the end of Oct when Ukr collapses?
Meanwhile the Putinkim Army has 600k casualties.
To answer the question “What does the US gain by supporting an expansionist NATO policy?”, one just needs to look at the history and the western culture. Apart from NATO, you have AUKUS, QUAD that were set up recently because that’s in the western culture to buddy up when they want to bully others.
And Ukraine is where it ends!!
強弩之末
No it’s the new form of US war fare, use the neighbors to take down Russia and China.
Ph, Taiwan, SK, Jap, Viet… all ready to defend themselves with US weapons against tiddly wink agression.