How could it be that the Biden admin thinks Ukraine can't win a total battlefield victory but won't encourage a negotiated settlement? I consider the explanations. responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/10/14/the…
If the Post is right and U.S. officials think "neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of...nudging Ukraine" to negotiate, they share the view of their dovish critics who say US policy on the war serves to prolong it.
One explanation is that they feel politically trapped—by their own overwrought rhetoric about global democracy and security depends son Ukraine and the sloganeering hawkishness of Congress and pundits—and unable to shift course.
I credit Biden with being more politically adept than that, so I find another explanation more credible: that the admin is happy to see Russia get punished and grow weaker. So as long Ukraine is up for keeping it up, why rock the boat? No one is gonna nuke us.
Or maybe the Post is wrong, and the admin will push Ukraine to compromise once it seems likelier to work: once the war makes the sides see the likely outcome in similar terms. However you judge that morally, it makes sense IF you can manage escalation risk.
Yes that's what Russia presumably hopes Americans worry about; they want us to fear wandering into a nuclear war so much that we push Ukraine to settle. But unlike most people making this observation, I don't think it obviously follows that we shouldn't push a settlement.
It seems important to add that whether you want to punish Russia due an idea of justice or just weaken it to limit future aggression, you already won; mission accomplished without retaking every inch of Ukraine. No one will see Russia as an example to emulate. Have a parade.
A final point, per @Dsterms, which I left out of the oped: even if Ukraine retakes all its territory, which is wildly unlikely in Crimea, why does the war automatically end? Yes it would be easier to get the pre 2014 borders, but Russia might keep fighting.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Nearly every US security strategy asserts we're in a time of unprecedented change. The new Biden one does so in the first line of the president's forward, which is hardly its worst problem but still annoying. whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
Also in the predictably annoying but basically harmless category is the pretension they have discovered that domestic well-being and achieving security abroad, are (would you believe it?) connected.
The strategy predictably touts the dominant "everything is security," and security is everything ethos. Climate, poverty, corruption, "LBTQI+" rights, "inclusive development," labor standards, etc all enhance "security," making it indistinguishable from all desirable things.
Semiconductor production security is better reason for the US to not fight for Taiwan than to do so. The war is what might disrupt production. China can't shut down semiconductor sales to us without losing key component suppliers.
A more reasonable concern is that China could gain a long-term technological advantage by taking over Taiwan. But that sure doesn't seem worth a potentially nuclear war either. How about capitalist competition instead?