Western involvement in the Ukraine war

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft analyzes US and Western foreign policy. The mission statement of the QIRS says it promotes a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy and critique ideologies that have led to counterproductive outcomes, e.g., the Ukraine war. It advocates for responsible statecraft, which serves the public interest, engages the world through peaceful cooperation, builds a peaceful world, abhors war, and is pro-democracy. A Dec. 4, 2023 QIRS article, Did the West deliberately prolong the Ukraine war?, makes a very troubling argument:

Mounting evidence proves that we cannot believe anything our officials say about the futility of negotiations

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny the war in Ukraine could have been ended mere months into the Russian invasion — and that the U.S. and U.K. governments worked to prevent this from happening.

The latest piece of corroboration comes courtesy David Arakhamia, the parliamentary leader of Zelensky’s “Servant of the People” party who led the Ukrainian delegation in peace talks with Moscow. Arakhamia told journalist Natalia Moseichuk in a recent televised interview that “Russia's goal was to push us to take neutrality,” meaning to commit to not joining NATO, and that “they were ready to end the war if we accept neutrality.”

There were several reasons the negotiations ultimately collapsed, he said, including the need to change the Ukrainian constitution (which had been amended in February 2019 to enshrine the country’s NATO aspirations), and the fact that Johnson had come to Kyiv to inform Ukrainian officials the West wouldn’t sign any agreement with Moscow, instead urging: “let’s just fight.”

Arakhamia also said that Kyiv’s lack of trust in the Russian side to fulfill its end of the bargain meant that the peace deal “could only be done if there were security guarantees” — suggesting, obliquely, that negotiations could have borne fruit had they received the backing and involvement of NATO states. Western governments’ provision of security guarantees for Ukraine have long been part of the discussion for how to ensure the sustainability of a post-war peace deal, and in fact, Arakhmia himself disclosed in the same interview that “the Western allies advised us not to agree to ephemeral security guarantees.”  

The interview corroborates claims first reported in May 2022 by the broadly Western-alignedUkrainska Pravda outlet — which reported that Boris Johnson told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the West wouldn’t support any peace deal regardless of what Ukraine wanted, and they preferred to keep taking the fight to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was less powerful than they had thought.  

Former U.S. national security official Fiona Hill reported the two sides had reached a tentative peace deal the same month of Johnson’s surprise visit to Kyiv, while former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, and several Turkish officials — all of whom were involved at various times in the talks — have said that NATO officials stopped or undermined negotiations.  

Finally, the effort to prevent peace talks from bearing fruit put not just more Ukrainians in danger, but the entire world. After assuring the U.S. public in February that they needn’t fear nuclear war with Russia, by September, President Joe Biden was privately warning that the world was the closest it had been to “Armageddon” in sixty years. The nineteen months that followed the failure of Russian-Ukrainian peace talks saw several near-misses that could have turned the war into one between Russia and NATO, one that would likely escalate to a nuclear confrontation.

The decision not to seriously pursue a viable diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine has been a disaster for that country and its inhabitants. The only mild consolation is that it could offer a vital lesson for the United States and other NATO states to apply to and prevent future conflicts — if we dare learn it, that is.

This line of reasoning and supporting evidence is solid evidence that the US and NATO could have had a peace deal early in the war, but decided to prolong the war to weaken Putin and Russia. History and analysis of the war has been discussed here before (here, here and here), but this article reinforces concerns that the situation in the Ukraine is probably untenable for the US, NATO and the Ukraine.

This is information the American people should be aware of. Repeated exposure to it helps keep it in memory (something I definitely need). The US is on the verge of abandoning the Ukraine to Putin’s mercies. As we all know, Putin has no mercy. If Ukrainian defenses collapse, there will be vengeance including genocide and ethnic cleansing. The Ukraine could be annexed into Russia and disappear. That catastrophic failure probably could have been prevented if the US had a more competent foreign policy and a more competent, less pro-war president.