\n\n“A negotiated end to the conflict is the right goal \u2014 and one that needs to arrive sooner rather than later. Ukraine likely lacks the combat power to expel Russia from all of its territory, and the momentum on the battlefield is shifting in Russia\u2019s favor. The longer this conflict continues, the greater the death and destruction, the more severe the disruptions to the global economy and the food supply, and the higher the risk of escalation to full-scale war between Russia and NATO. Transatlantic unity is starting to fray, with France, Germany, Italy and other allies uneasy about the prospect of a prolonged war \u2014 especially against the backdrop of rising inflation.”
…
“Washington has not only a right to discuss war aims with Kyiv, but also an obligation. This conflict arguably represents the most dangerous geopolitical moment since the Cuban missile crisis. A hot war is raging between a nuclear-armed Russia and a NATO-armed Ukraine, with NATO territory abutting the conflict zone. This war could define the strategic and economic contours of the 21st century, possibly opening an era of militarized rivalry between the world\u2019s liberal democracies and an autocratic bloc anchored by Russia and China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These stakes necessitate direct U.S. engagement in determining when and how this war ends. Instead of offering arms with no strings attached \u2014 effectively leaving strategy up to the Ukrainians \u2014 Washington needs to launch a forthright discussion about war termination with allies, with Kyiv, and ultimately, with Moscow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To prepare the ground for that pivot, the Biden administration should stop making claims that could tie its own hands at the negotiating table. Biden insists that the West must \u201cmake it clear that might does not make right.\u201d Otherwise, \u201cit will send a message to other would-be aggressors that they too can seize territory and subjugate other countries. It will put the survival of other peaceful democracies at risk. And it could mark the end of the rules-based international order.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Really? Russia has illegally held Crimea and occupied a chunk of Donbas since 2014. But the rules-based international order has not come to an end; indeed, it has performed admirably in punishing Russia for its new round of aggression against Ukraine. Washington should avoid painting itself into a corner by predicting catastrophe if Russia remains in control of a slice of Ukraine when the fighting stops. Such forecasts make compromise more difficult \u2014 and risk magnifying the geopolitical impact of whatever territorial gains Russia may salvage.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n