Defeating the Russian forces on the battlefield and restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, including taking back Crimea, "would be condign punishment for Russia's unprovoked invasion," De Santis wrote in his opinion piece for The National Interest magazine on Saturday.
"But would it be worth the cost of more carnage in Ukraine, the possibility of a wider war in which chemical or tactical nuclear weapons might be used, further disruption of the world economy, and renewed European polarization?" he asked.
According to the former State Department official, the answer to that question is negative.
"A Ukrainian military victory is not in the cards, and a negotiated outcome is the only realistic goal," he insisted.
Because of this, "the US and its allies must persuade Kiev to bring this war to an end, including by imposing limits on further military aid as leverage," De Santis suggested.
Washington has been actively backing Kiev during the conflict, supplying it with weapons, funds and intelligence. In May, US President Joe Biden approved a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine.
President Volodymyr Zelensky and "his advocates in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states" should come to terms with the fact that Ukraine will become a neutral state and that it would have to hand over the Donbass and Crimea to Russia for the peace talks to be successful, he pointed out.
Comment: The US also needs to come to terms with that fact. Moreover, Ukraine needn't 'hand over' either of those regions because Crimea has already reunited with Russia and Donbass isn't far off.
Current high-ranking US and EU officials have also recently identified negotiations as the preferred outcome of the conflict as Russian forces continue their steady advance in the Donbass.
Last week, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said that "a negotiated outcome is a logical choice, but both sides have to come to that conclusion on their own."
A few days before that, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell urged the bloc to increase deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and apply even more sanctions against Russia, but explained that it should be done to help Kiev strengthen its position in future peace talks with Moscow. Just over a month ago, Borrell was insisting that "this war must be won on the battlefield" by Ukraine.
Russia attacked its neighboring state in late February, following Kiev's failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow's eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.
The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.
Reader Comments
Condign - suitable to the fault or crime
Was this incursion unprovoked? This seems to me a big issue. Eight years of bombing of civilians would seem provoking to me.
One would think that of all the extremely well paid advisors/strategists that the US and the collective west has to offer, this conclusion would have been reached months ago. Apparently not.
Imagine or ask yourself who would of actually "lost" if the USA and Russia actually worked together (but in this instance worked as a genuine unified relationship between two very resourceful countries)?
It's pretty obvious why (even if commenters and the article writers do seem self encouraged by the propaganda).
To think Russia would wait 8 years to deal with something so genuine (or have us all believe Russia the great Bear would take so long to extinguish this exaggerated threat in the present time is laughable).
It spotlights away from both expenses for Europe and "the time to plant and a time harvest".
Its all theatre really when it's all said and done.
Just look who government is, who they hate amd compare it to who genuinely loses out (that has no dog in this race) and its clear as day. To me anyway.
I agree with you on this. I have met normal everyday folks from around the world including Russia and Ukraine. I've found there is not much difference and most are likeable people that have the same human qualities. We are manipulated into having opinions that don't benefit us, but instead the ones that are manipulating opinion. I believe this is the case with the current (and the last several decades) anti russian narrative. But, what I believe to be the current situation in the world, expressed most significantly (which is debatable) in the form of what we see with the situation in Ukraine, is a struggle for geo-economic dominance. On one side the west, led by the US (more accurately it's puppet masters), which currently possesses a lions share but seemingly, gradually losing its position as hegemon
.. the other, a russo-chinese led partnership that seems to be gradually gaining. I believe that russia had the forethought to know that action in Ukraine would set in motion, the accelerated pace of the next steps to that end, and took the last 8 years to plan, prepare, and strategize while also hopeful that diplomacy, partnership and cooperation would prevail. Although, not all of this is conclusive in my mind. It could be just as you said, all theatre. Just a distraction and a russian scapegoat to blame the chaos on, when in reality, the chaos is a problem created intentionally just to offer the solution, which is of course order. Who knows?Based on this background, should Russia trust anything that the Western governments, NATO, UN and negotiators offer in a peace deal?
If I'm correct they voted for that Zhelensky mainly because he promised to solve that Donbas issues peaceful way.