A new Rand study admits that continuing the war in Ukraine is not in US interests and a negotiated settlement in the proxy war with Russia is desirable, especially if the US plans to escalate the ongoing confrontation with China:
Beyond the potential for Russian gains and the economic consequences for Ukraine, Europe, and the world, a long war would also have on sequences for U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. ability to focus on its other global priorities —particularly, competition with China— will remain constrained as long as the war is absorbing senior policymakers’ time and U.S. military resources. . .A dramatic, overnight shift in U.S. policy is politically impossible—both domestically and with allies—and would be unwise in any case. But developing these instruments now and socializing them with Ukraine and with U.S. allies might help catalyze the eventual start of a process that could bring this war to a negotiated end in a time frame that would serve U.S. interests. RAND Study Sees Risks In Prolonged War – The Burning Platform
A 2019 Rand report outlined US options for waging an economic and political war against Russia. Trump and Biden have implemented all the measures with high benefits, but most also came with high risks. At this point it looks like the risks are real, but the benefits and the likelihood success were grossly overestimated.
Yes, a war with China would be disaster for the US.
They have ten times the economy and ten times the population of Russia. If we can’t win against Russia, I don’t see any way we will win against China. That is especially true if Russia keeps good relations with China.
On the other hand, there needs to be some excuse for a 180 on policy. China may provide that excuse.
Do you think a 5 Star General’s warning in 1961 about the dangers of our military industry still applies today? What did we gain in Viet Nam? What did we accomplish in Iraq? Did we really leave 84 billion dollars worth of military equipment in Afghanistan? What are we accomplishing in the Ukraine? What force is perpetuating this constant involvement of the US around the world, militarily…that is accomplishing NOTHING of value to the American people that are footing this bill?
We have been working hard at blowing up any bridges (and pipelines) that could lead to a negotiated settlement in Ukraine. I suspect that when the end of the war comes it will look like Kabul 2021 or Saigon 1975.
I actually agree with much of the Rand piece. The OP makes it sounds as if Rand is calling for this right now. They are simply saying a long war is not in our best interests. Thats true- and peace agreements most likely will have to be made by the end of next year.
The Rand piece also calls for the US to back security agreements with Ukraine- in essence saying that if Russia attacks Ukraine again after a peace agreement that the US should completely back Ukraine-making it a defacto NATO ally.
I have a strong feeling the OP disagrees with this…and I know that Putin disagrees with this. I honestly don’t know what would get Putin to ultimately agree to this.
"To address the credible commitment problem for Ukraine, the United States and its allies could consider outlining the long-term commitments they are prepared to make to Ukraine’s security if Kyiv comes to terms with Moscow.
Security commitments can take many forms, ranging from promises of limited support in wartime to a vow to intervene militarily to defend another country if it is attacked. Providing Kyiv such a commitment
could affect Ukraine’s decision making about ending the war:
It would address Kyiv’s concerns about the credibility of Moscow’s promises not to attack Ukraine again as part of a settlement.57 A U.S. security commitment—particularly a commitment to intervene militarily should Russia attack again—would deter Moscow from future aggression, since Russia would be risking war with a much more powerful coalition, not just with Ukraine. Ukraine would be more confident in its security and would have a more stable environment in which to recover economically from the conflict."
its not saying it at all. Its saying that when the time is right and the situation is right a negotiated settlement should be had and the US should act as gaurantor to Ukraine security by pledging to intervene Militarily on Ukraine’s behalf if Russia breaks the agreement again.
Rand depends on funding from the Pentagon and the military industry. It is quietly calling for a negotiated settlement because it knows that the war is already lost. At the same time, saying that too bluntly would raise uncomfortable questions about Rand’s previous statements and reduce its credibility to policy makers in Washington.
The situation is something akin to the tepid warnings from the Japanese power company as the Fukushima nuclear plants exploded on live TV. People in Tokyo were smart enough to evacuate even if the officials were not saying that directly.
The reality is that any peace agreement will be on Russian terms. Given the history of broken agreements and duplicity from the west, I suspect that last thing that Russia will want is a NATO-backed US puppet state in Ukraine. That horse has already left the stable.
Finland had been a model for a neutral county on Russia’s border. That was true for 75 years under terms of the Finnish surrender agreement of 1947, but current attempts to get Finland to join NATO have burned that bridge. From what I see, the most likely future for Ukraine will be with a Russian puppet regime in Kyiv.
The possible exception will be far western Ukraine, which is the stronghold Ukrainian nationalists. Putin may ultimately let Poland, Romania, and Hungary and/or Slovakia take back land that was annexed by the Soviets after WW2.
So you are linking to a Pentagon Think Tank piece that…you actually disagree with.
The war will take a while- it wouldnt be good if it lasts too long. There will be a negotiated settlement of some land. the US will have to provide security agreements to Ukraine so Russia doesn’t attack again.
