Biden and NYT: correspondence concerning Ukraine
In its article, the NYT notes that the war in Ukraine is entering a stage of uncertainty, when a significant escalation could lead to a nuclear strike by Russia. In this regard, the American publication calls on the top US political leadership to "soberly assess" the situation. According to the editorial office, the task of the White House in such a scenario is to reconsider the amount of support for Ukraine and to establish clear boundaries to which this support can extend. It is worth noting that outside these boundaries, Ukraine will face possible "painful" decisions that will cost it its territory.
Again, we hear the story that Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the war to retreat. But does this mean that the editorial office is ready to justify violence and forgive it if the personality of the perpetrator is so large that its shadow covers all his crimes?
Why the NYT's proposals do more harm than good (including and first of all for the United States) has been well explained in the editorials by our colleagues from European Pravda and The Kyiv Independent. We are just to sum it up.
Above all, territorial concessions to Moscow will set a precedent for the aggressor's impunity. One should not forget that Russia is not the only and the most powerful revisionist within the current international relations system. The implementation of the NYT’s scenario will be a signal to other opponents of the United States. First of all, China. The escalation of territorial disputes affecting its ambitions will significantly destabilize the Indo-Pacific region, a key area for Washington in the near future.
When the "rule of the gun" begins to dominate the system of international relations, the world order will be completely destroyed. Not that today we see the effective work of conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms developed by the world community. But the faith in liability for international crimes is still alive.
The war in Ukraine is an unprecedented escalation of the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Moscow's foreign policy is usually the result of its internal processes. It is believed that the cause of Russia's aggression is not so much a threat of NATO as an attempt to preserve its internal regime. Ukraine's loss of new territories will be considered a victory for the Kremlin and will only strengthen the Putin regime's position inside the country. At the same time, for the United States, such a scenario would be equal to new reputational losses.
Of course, it is Russian narrative that Moscow is not really at war with Ukraine, but with the West. However, there are many people, including in Europe and in the US itself, believing it. Ukraine's defeat in the war with Russia (since the loss of territories is nothing but defeat) will automatically extend to the United States.
After the statements by the US officials cited in the NYT's editorial saying the United States will support Ukraine until victory, losing support on the way to such victory will mean betrayal and retreat on the part of the United States. If we say that in the realm of values, the war is for democracy, then what will the actions seen by the world as a betrayal of democracy and of those defending it cost the United States?
In the event of Ukraine's defeat, the democratic administration of Joseph Biden should also expect losses. The Republican Party is likely to use inconsistent White House policies as an argument in the November midterm election and the future presidential one.
Only 11 senators did not support the recent Senate decision to approve another $40 billion military aid package for Ukraine all of them being Republicans. After territorial concessions to Vladimir Putin, Ukraine's bipartisan consensus will be dismantled, and the Trumpists will attack Biden's "ineffective" globalist policies with renewed vigor.
In the article, the NYT asks (or even demands) President Biden for answers to the following question: what are the goals and strategy of the United States in this war? The master of the White House decided to answer these questions personally. Yesterday, his column appeared in the NYT regarding what America will and will not do in Ukraine.
The goal of the United States in the ongoing war is a democratic and sovereign Ukraine having sufficient means to protect and counter aggression, Joe Biden says in the article.
The US leader is convinced that any talks with Russia will reflect the situation on the battlefield. That is why Washington will continue to provide Ukraine with extensive military and financial assistance.
At the same time, the United States will continue to work with partners around the world to avoid the food and energy crises that some experts and the public are concerned about.
In the NYT, President Biden reaffirmed his commitment to "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" principle. The White House is not going to persuade Zelensky's government to make any concessions. On the contrary, the Biden administration shares our view that Russia's impunity will free the hands of other potential aggressors and threaten other democracies.
On the pages of the NYT, the citizens of the United States received answers to questions that concerned them, and Ukraine - assurances of unwavering support from the Allies. Now it would be good to reinforce this assurance with the supply of missile systems.