A criticism of how America is dealing with the Ukraine war

A column in the South China Morning Post (SCMP) offers a criticism of the prevailing narrative in the US:

Ukraine has become a proxy war for the United States

Russia’s outright defeat is now paramount to Washington, rather than peace in Ukraine. Trouncing Putin will remove an old foe, undermine the alliance between Moscow and Beijing, and allow the US to refocus total hostility on China

It seems increasingly clear that, so far as the United States is concerned, there is a big difference in goal and method when it comes to “saving Ukraine” and “defeating Russia”. The two goals are not the same and may even be incompatible. Is Russia’s defeat now the unstated end game that the US is seeking?

It’s worth observing that war cries are coincidentally reaching a fever pitch as to drown out alternative voices in the US while its mainstream media offer non-stop coverage on a foreign war that involves no US troops on the ground.

According to a study by the Tyndall Report, an authoritative journalism newsletter which has been tracking and analyzing nightly newscasts since 1987, the three major TV networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, have spent more time together in their reporting on the Ukraine war than all other wars in the last 31 years, including those started by the US.

Of course, these are just three TV networks. Practically all other major news outlets in the US – and also in Europe – have been offering non-stop news coverage. For Europeans, though, it’s understandable because the war is right in their own backyard.

But for the US? Anyone who offers more nuanced analyses or explanations for the war now risks being denounced as “Putin’s American apologist”, “Putin’s pals”, “Russia’s stooges”, “Russian trolls”, “patsies” and “useful idiots”.

That’s what happens when the US media and political class are mobilised to promote and legitimate war efforts. President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly made peace overtures and even managed to kick off a few rounds of peace talks with Moscow. They were all met by silence from Washington.

When Kyiv said it was prepared to negotiate the status of Crimea and the Donbas coveted by Russia, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken countered about the imperative to defend the “basic principle” that “one country cannot simply change the borders of another by force”.

It may be unspoken but it’s clear many in Washington, including those in the White House, think US interests lie with Russia’s defect, while peace in Ukraine is incidental.

In a recent interview on NPR (National Public Radio), [Hal Brands, Henry A. Kissinger distinguished professor of global affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies] offers a perfectly logical, if ruthless explanation behind the US strategy over the war in Ukraine.

“There’s long been a debate in the United States over whether we should prioritize competing with Russia or China or treat them as coequals. .... And that debate has flared up again in the context of this war. I think what the war indicates, though, is that the best way of putting pressure on China, which is the more dangerous and the more powerful of the two rivals, is actually to ensure that Russia is defeated, that it does not achieve its objectives in this war, because that will result in a weaker Russia, one that is less capable of putting pressure on the United States and its allies in Europe and thus less useful as a strategic partner for Beijing. .... The United States simply can’t avoid the reality that it has to contain both Russia and China simultaneously.” (emphasis added)

According to this rationale, the US is harming Ukraine by not doing all it can to support Zelensky's peace overtures to Putin. That does look plausible, assuming Putin would have been willing to negotiate a peace. 

One has to wonder about what it means to “contain” Russia and China. China is aggressively weaponizing the South China Sea, all of which it claims as China’s territorial waters. The Global Conflict Tracker comments:

Tensions between China and both the Philippines and Vietnam have recently cooled, even as China increased its military activity in the South China Sea by conducting a series of naval maneuvers and exercises in March and April 2018. Meanwhile, China continues to construct military and industrial outposts on artificial islands it has built in disputed waters.

The United States has also stepped up its military activity and naval presence in the region in recent years, including freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) in January and March 2018. In a speech during his November 2017 visit to Southeast Asia, President Donald J. Trump emphasized the importance of such operations, and of ensuring free and open access to the South China Sea. Since May 2017, the United States has conducted six FONOPs in the region.  

China’s sweeping claims of sovereignty over the sea—and the sea’s estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—have antagonized competing claimants Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. As early as the 1970s, countries began to claim islands and various zones in the South China Sea, such as the Spratly Islands, which possess rich natural resources and fishing areas.

China maintains [PDF] that, under international law, foreign militaries are not able to conduct intelligence-gathering activities, such as reconnaissance flights, in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). According to the United States, claimant countries, under UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), should have freedom of navigation through EEZs in the sea and are not required to notify claimants of military activities. In July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague issued its ruling on a claim brought against China by the Philippines under UNCLOS, ruling in favor of the Philippines on almost every count. While China is a signatory to the treaty, which established the tribunal, it refuses to accept the court’s authority.

Military conflict with China is possible. Assuming it is not already too late, a more robust US effort to foster a peace agreement between the Ukraine and Russia might be a better strategy.  It is not clear that the US and Europe can “contain” Russia or China, whatever containment means. It sounds like military conflict, either directly or through proxies.

Chinese aircraft carrier battle group

in the South China Sea

The basis for war with China

Acknowledgement: Thanks to PD for bringing the SCMP article to my attention.