I just finished reading the Foreign Affairs article with the same name as this thread written by Samuel Charap. I certainly don't agree with a lot of it, but I do strongly agree with Charap's belief that Washington needs to start thinking about negotiating a way out of this hot war and at least transitioning it to a cold one, such as the armistice between North and South Korea brokered around 70 years ago. I'll just quote the ending, since I have some disagreements with the introduction. I actually even disagree with some of the conclusion- I believe that Crimea's referendum to join Russia back in 2014 was legitimate and should be respected, and I also think that much if not all of the territory that Russia now holds may well be for the best, given the various refendums that have been held there and the claimed results that they all voted to join Russia. And I also believe that the U.S. should stop supplying weapons and training to Ukraine immediately and focus on its domestic issues, of which it has many. But I think the rest of Charap's conclusion is on track.
**
June 5, 2023
[snip]
An endgame premised on an armistice would leave Ukraine—at least temporarily—without all its territory. But the country would have the opportunity to recover economically, and the death and destruction would end. It would remain locked in a conflict with Russia over the areas occupied by Moscow, but that conflict would play out in the political, cultural, and economic domains, where, with Western support, Ukraine would have advantages. The successful reunification of Germany, in 1990, another country divided by terms of peace, demonstrates that focusing on nonmilitary elements of the contestation can produce results. Meanwhile, a Russian-Ukrainian armistice would also not end the West’s confrontation with Russia, but the risks of a direct military clash would decrease dramatically, and the global consequences of the war would be mitigated.
Many commentators will continue to insist that this war must be decided only on the battlefield. But that view discounts how the war’s structural realities are unlikely to change even if the frontline shifts, an outcome that itself is far from guaranteed. The United States and its allies should be capable of helping Ukraine simultaneously on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. Now is the time to start.
**
Full article:
An Unwinnable War - Washington Needs an Endgame in Ukraine | Foreign Affairs
**
June 5, 2023
[snip]
An endgame premised on an armistice would leave Ukraine—at least temporarily—without all its territory. But the country would have the opportunity to recover economically, and the death and destruction would end. It would remain locked in a conflict with Russia over the areas occupied by Moscow, but that conflict would play out in the political, cultural, and economic domains, where, with Western support, Ukraine would have advantages. The successful reunification of Germany, in 1990, another country divided by terms of peace, demonstrates that focusing on nonmilitary elements of the contestation can produce results. Meanwhile, a Russian-Ukrainian armistice would also not end the West’s confrontation with Russia, but the risks of a direct military clash would decrease dramatically, and the global consequences of the war would be mitigated.
Many commentators will continue to insist that this war must be decided only on the battlefield. But that view discounts how the war’s structural realities are unlikely to change even if the frontline shifts, an outcome that itself is far from guaranteed. The United States and its allies should be capable of helping Ukraine simultaneously on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. Now is the time to start.
**
Full article:
An Unwinnable War - Washington Needs an Endgame in Ukraine | Foreign Affairs
