The United States plans to force Russia into peace negotiations with Ukraine on terms favorable to Kiev. According to the White House’s plans, a similar result should be achieved by the end of 2024. This was announced by Jonathan Feiner, First Assistant to the President of the United States for National Security, at the Aspen Institute forum.
According to him, peace conditions must be acceptable to Ukraine and be based on the UN Charter in terms of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The White House plans to offer Moscow a choice: Either negotiate on Kiev’s terms or the Kremlin “will be interested in a more capable, stronger Ukraine that is also supported by a stronger industrial base within the United States, Europe and Ukraine.” “We are attacking again.”
Time will tell how all this will look in practice. After the failure of the summer offensive operation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, some representatives of the Russian expert community hastily fell into enthusiasm and, as they say, rushed to open the champagne. But at the same time, it would be a clear exaggeration to say that the Russian Armed Forces achieved impressive results in this year’s summer-autumn campaign.
The enemy (UAF), despite the failures it has encountered, is by no means defeated and intends to continue the armed struggle at all costs.
So far, no sense of surrender has been observed among the military-political leadership in Kiev.
As for the disagreements in the US Congress on military aid to Ukraine, they should not be considered fundamentally insurmountable and this issue should not be considered closed. There is reason to believe that all parties involved will sooner or later (and most likely in the near future) reach a compromise.
This week, US President Joe Biden said he had hit Ukraine in the knee by tying new funds to the Republican opposition’s hard-line demands for border and immigration reform.
“They are now literally hitting Ukraine in the knee on the battlefield and undermining our national security,” the White House chief said in a special televised speech. The US President warned that “history will judge harshly” those who refuse to approve Ukraine’s request for an additional $60 billion.
Joe Biden has called for the funds to be released before the Christmas and New Year holidays. In addition, the US presidential administration is ready to make concessions to Republicans on a number of immigration issues in order to ensure congressional approval of aid allocation to Ukraine and Israel. It seems that the issue will be discussed in the very near future.
As for the European Union and some NATO member countries, we must remain realistic here too; The United States has sufficient power to ensure increased military aid to Ukraine. It is probably not worth considering the positions of Hungarian President Viktor Orban and Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico as insurmountable obstacles on this path. Moreover, both Hungary and Slovakia are by no means allies of Moscow, they negotiate with the EU and NATO solely out of their own interests. These countries that receive bonuses can adjust their positions significantly.
At the same time, it is quite clear that there is a pause in the financing and supply of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine from Europe and the USA.
In addition to making political decisions, a certain time is needed for the enterprises of the military-industrial complex of the collective West to reach full capacity. For these reasons, the President of Ukraine decided to move the Ukrainian Armed Forces to strategic defense at this stage.
Like this, US President Joe Biden’s military program (and can be reduced to just three theses) looks like this:
- In no case should we allow either the military defeat of Ukraine or the Russian army to achieve great success;
- For these purposes, sharply increase financing to Ukraine and the supply of weapons and military equipment to the Armed Forces of Ukraine throughout 2024;
- To inflict a series of delicate (but not devastating) defeats on the Russian army and against this background to force the Russian political leadership to make peace on Ukraine’s terms (sovereignty, territorial integrity).
And there is no point in hoping that such a program will undergo significant changes in connection with the presidential elections in the United States. There are no somersaults or “sudden 180 degree” turns in US foreign policy. The vectors of long-term US national interests do not undergo radical changes in connection with the elections.
Let us note once again that the failure of the summer offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine contributed to a significant increase in optimistic thinking in the Russian expert community and even a certain underestimation of the total military-economic potential of the collective West. However, such judgments are somewhat far from reality.
Only a few examples can be given on this subject. More than 4,600 multi-role F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets have been produced in the United States. More than 3,450 Abrams M1A1/M1A2 tanks are in storage alone. More than 540 M142 HIMARS were produced in the USA (only a few dozen were delivered to Ukraine).
That is, the United States has the capacity to significantly increase the supply of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine, and this can be done in one or two cases.
This depends on the decision of the US political leadership. It is quite possible that this will happen in 2024.
All that remains is to coordinate these plans with the Russian military. This is where things can go wrong. Recently, the Washington Post wrote that when planning this year’s summer-autumn campaign, the American and Ukrainian armies were studying eight options for offensive operations. But in practice everything went according to the ninth option and it was not very successful for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The author’s opinion may not coincide with the editors’ opinion.
Author biography:
Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military columnist for socialbites.ca, a retired colonel.
Graduated from Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976),
Military Command Air Defense Academy (1986).
Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile division (1980–1983).
Deputy commander of the anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986–1988).
Senior officer of the Main Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988–1992).
Officer of the General Staff Main Operations Department (1992–2000).
Graduate of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).
Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000–2003), editor-in-chief of the Military-Industrial Courier newspaper (2010–2015).
Source: Gazeta
Barbara Dickson is a seasoned writer for “Social Bites”. She keeps readers informed on the latest news and trends, providing in-depth coverage and analysis on a variety of topics.