Peloni: As Ukraine maintains an uncompromising position in its war with Russia amid US munitions limitations, the question arises as to what is doable and what is achievable. Ukraine’s maximalist demands with marginal capabilities continue to be inconsistent with reality. Even in a stalemate, Ukraine’s dependency on US weapon systems represent a demand which can not be sustained inevitably, and this is what would be needed in pursuit of Ukraine’s demands. Reality bites and the reality is that Ukraine’s war with Russia is not sustainable, its war aims are not realistic, and its capabilities are dependent on siphoning critical weapon inventories of the entire West to balance against these realities with no real possibility of altering this balance in Ukraine’s favor.
Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner wound up their visit to Kiev on September 6 after visiting Moscow the day prior. In both capitals, the US special diplomatic duo met with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky respectively. Both offered solutions that the Russians seemed to like, and the Ukrainians did not. Washington needs a solution to the Ukraine war because it cannot continue to support Ukraine’s war needs. Supporting Ukraine is undermining NATO’s defenses and NATO’s viability.
Very little information has been released on the Witkoff-Kushner visit results, although it is clear that Witkoff and Kushner, according to them and to President Trump, came with concrete proposals that were presented to both leaders. The content of the proposals has not been disclosed. Officially the Russians have said the recent talks were “highly useful” and that the two envoys “outlined a number of ideas regarding possible avenues for a settlement.”
Verkhovna Rada deputy Anna Skorokhod, reported that the proposals presented in Kiev by Witkoff and Kushner, were tougher than the previous ones offered earlier by the diplomats.
Skorokhod is a controversial figure in Ukraine. She had originally been elected under the banner of the Servant of the People party, the ruling party in Ukraine. She was expelled from the party amidst allegations she raised about corruption and the arrest of her husband. In 2020 she joined the For the Future faction in the Verkhovna Rada. She apparently was suspended by the government, allegedly for corruption, but anyhow continues as a member of the Ukrainian parliament. Her sources of information about the Witkoff-Kushner proposals are not clear, but it is possible that the US is briefing opposition parliamentarians on the apparent US offer, anticipating pushback from Zelensky. (The US may also be preparing to try and offload Zelensky.)
Unsurprisingly, the spin doctors in Kiev have put out a story saying that it was the Russians holding up progress. The Kiev Independent says that “Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner brought revised peace proposals to both capitals, but Moscow appears unwilling to make meaningful concessions….” The story continues, “The envoys ‘genuinely want’ to make progress toward a ceasefire before winter, one Ukrainian official and one U.S. official said. But Putin still hopes to break us this winter and isn’t willing to agree to anything.” The newspaper attributes its story to unnamed “people” and to an unidentified Ukrainian and unnamed American official.
Past US ideas for a settlement suggested establishing a specialized free economic zone or demilitarized arrangement in parts of the Donbas region not currently under full Russian control, aimed at freezing the line of contact, while acknowledging that Russia occupies substantial portions of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts alongside Crimea. The Ukrainians have demanded a ceasefire without agreeing to any territorial changes, neither de jure or de facto. Obviously the Russians are seeking an end to the war that leaves them in full control of the Russia-annexed territories.
The following represents the best estimates of current Russian territorial control: Crimea: 100% under Russian control; Luhansk Oblast: roughly 99% under Russian control; Donetsk Oblast: roughly 72% to 81% under Russian control; Zaporizhzhia Oblast: approximately 74% under Russian control, primarily across the southern and central portions; and the Kherson Oblast: approximately 76% under Russian control, mostly situated on the eastern/left bank of the Dnipro River.
Zelensky has said that the territorial issue is “existential” for Ukraine and that he is not willing to accept any territorial concessions. Meanwhile Zelensky is asking for weapons from the US, especially Patriot missiles, and wants any actual negotiation with Russia to include the three major European powers, what he calls the E3 nations, namely the United Kingdom, Germany and France. It isn’t clear if Witkoff and Kushner accepted Zelensky’s E3 Nations proposal.
Zelensky has excluded the other European actors, especially Poland which has a more powerful military than either Germany or the United Kingdom, possibly even better than France. He also has excluded the Baltic states who feel they are increasingly threatened by Russia, and excluded Sweden (largest air force in Europe) and Finland, as well as Italy. In short, Zelensky has been cherry picking friends he regards as pro-Ukraine and reliable.
Meanwhile Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, thinks negotiations are going nowhere. Lavrov, in an interview on September 8, “argued that most of the public talk about diplomacy coming from Kiev and its Western sponsors is intended to secure another pause in the fighting and give their Ukrainian proxies time to rearm and regroup. Despite the renewed US effort, Lavrov insisted that no constructive peace negotiations are currently underway. ‘Nothing is happening on the diplomatic front,’ he said, adding that developments are instead unfolding ‘on the real front,’ where Russian forces are advancing.”
There are radically divergent views of the Ukrainian battlefront. The “official” NATO view is that Russia is losing the war, the Russian economy is getting close to collapse, and Putin’s “popularity” has declined significantly. NATO officials speak of a stalemate territorially in Ukraine and successful drone attacks on Russia’s critical infrastructure. US intelligence apparently concurs there is a stalemate.
The Russians, for their part, claim they are handling the Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian territory effectively (with some gaps that are slowly being fixed), and Russia is able to blast away at Ukraine using missiles, glide bombs and drones. The Russians claim they are slowly gaining ground in key areas, and are knocking out depots, factories and warehouses critical to Ukraine. In particular, Russia has stepped up attacks on Kiev (with visible success) and Odessa, especially cargo handling facilities in and near Odessa, and hitting ships bringing in war material and other supplies. Russia has all but stopped sea-shipment of Ukrainian grain, cooking oil and other agricultural commodities, not only severely limiting Ukraine’s export earnings, but impacting farmers who may not plant crops next year if they cannot be sold to earn hard currency.
Russia is also suffering a major decline in grain exports, due largely to Ukrainian attacks on Russian ports and on vessels in the Black Sea.
Washington wants a deal ending the war because it cannot sustain supporting Ukraine.
Washington’s real problems are the war with Iran, Chinese threats to Japan and Taiwan, and major operational and supply issues. Even if the Ukraine war is a stalemate, it threatens to continue to eat up increasingly scarce resources and weaken American and European defense. In other words, NATO is committing a slow-rolling suicide if it continues to plow weapons, money and operational resources into Ukraine, for the simple reason it will have almost nothing left to protect its own territory.
It is also obvious to Washington that the biggest Ukraine boosters in Europe, the E3, are among the worst prepared to defend Europe in a crisis with Russia. Britain is a total wreck from a defense standpoint, with a tiny standing army, a Navy that has wasted vast resources on meaningless but hugely costly aircraft carriers, with submarines that are in ill-repair, and with its frigates and other warships non-operational. Germany is likewise a mess: so much so that the German government is threatening to restart conscription. But an army without weapons won’t help much, and Germany is decades away from rebuilding its land forces. Similarly, until Germany gets Israeli air defenses (Arrow 3 and Iron Dome), it can’t protect its military bases or even its cities from air and missile attack.
American forces also are stretched, weapons and ammunition are in short supply (at best), and deploying US troops (50,000 in the Persian Gulf) and US assets (Navy, Air Force) has impacted US freedom of action and ability to sustain its operations and support key allies. The US has only three currently deployable aircraft carriers (one of which is back in San Diego and will be out of action for months), none in the Atlantic and currently none in the Pacific. The US is desperately short of air defense interceptors (Patriot, THAAD) and its continental air defense systems (49th Missile Defense Battalion) ground based ICBM interceptor system is hardly operational.
The Pentagon has made massive planning blunders in allowing US defense stocks to be handed over to Ukraine or shot off in the Iran war, and the tempo of operations has stressed deployed assets (troops, ships, aircraft) and lost key systems such as Reaper Drones (25% of fleet lost over Iran) and ATACMS missiles (down to nearly zero left in inventory).
If the negotiations with Russia and Ukraine flatline, the US may simply decide to end its support for Ukraine altogether. Doing this, of course, will set off a tempest in Europe and could lead to a NATO without the United States. It is likely Washington would like to repurpose NATO as a defensive alliance and end NATO expansion altogether, which would fit into Washington’s currently constrained capabilities. If that does not happen, NATO’s future is uncertain; so too is Ukraine’s.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.