Secretary of State Blinken and Ukranian leader Zelenskyy.
Blinken Ponders the Post-Ukraine-war Order
David Ignatius / The Washington Post
(January 24, 2023) — The Biden administration, convinced that Vladimir Putin has failed in his attempt to erase Ukraine, has begun planning for an eventual postwar military balance that will help Kyiv deter any repetition of Russia’s brutal invasion.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken outlined his strategy for the Ukrainian endgame and postwar deterrence during an interview on Monday at the State Department. The conversation offered an unusual exploration of some of the trickiest issues surrounding resolution of a Ukraine conflict that has threatened the global order.
Blinken explicitly commended Germany’s military backing for Ukraine at a time when Berlin is getting hammered by some other NATO allies for not providing Leopard tanks quickly to Kyiv. “Nobody would have predicted the extent of Germany’s military support” when the war began, Blinken said. “This is a sea change we should recognize.”
He also underlined President Biden’s determination to avoid direct military conflict with Russia, even as US weapons help pulverize Putin’s invasion force. “Biden has always been emphatic that one of his requirements in Ukraine is that there be no World War III,” Blinken said.
Russia’s colossal failure to achieve its military goals, Blinken believes, should now spur the United States and its allies to begin thinking about the shape of postwar Ukraine — and how to create a just and durable peace that upholds Ukraine’s territorial integrity and allows it to deter and, if necessary, defend against any future aggression. In other words, Russia should not be able to rest, regroup and reattack.
Blinken’s deterrence framework is somewhat different from last year’s discussions with Kyiv about security guarantees similar to NATO’s Article 5. Rather than such a formal treaty pledge, some US officials increasingly believe the key is to give Ukraine the tools it needs to defend itself. Security will be ensured by potent weapons systems — especially armor and air defense — along with a strong, noncorrupt economy and membership in the European Union.
The Pentagon’s current stress on providing Kyiv with weapons and training for maneuver warfare reflects this long-term goal of deterrence. “The importance of maneuver weapons isn’t just to give Ukraine strength now to regain territory but as a deterrent against future Russian attacks,” explained a State Department official familiar with Blinken’s thinking. “Maneuver is the future.”
The conversation with Blinken offered some hints about the intense discussions that have gone on for months within the administration about how the war in Ukraine can be ended and future peace maintained.
This war should never have happened. It needs to end.
The administration’s standard formula is that all decisions must ultimately be made by Ukraine, and Blinken reiterated that line. He also backs Ukraine’s desire for significant battlefield gains this year. But the State Department, Pentagon and National Security Council are also thinking ahead.
Crimea is a particular point of discussion. There is a widespread view in Washington and Kyiv that regaining Crimea by military force may be impossible. Any Ukrainian military advances this year in Zaporizhzhia oblast, the land bridge that connects Crimea and Russia, could threaten Russian control.
But an all-out Ukrainian campaign to seize the Crimean Peninsula is unrealistic, many US and Ukrainian officials believe. That’s partly because Putin has indicated that an assault on Crimea would be a tripwire for nuclear escalation.
Comments
Edward H — Not sure how accurate or reliable it is, but if there is some truth in it, it could be significant
David S — if you read the WaPo article, Blinken is of course declaring that Russia has lost, not conceding that the US has lost. Blinken’s proposal is of course not demilitarization — except in Crimea!! — but increased militarization. Also Blinken just doesn’t worry about nuclear escalation. And most of what that blog says is in the WaPo isn’t.
Related Reading:
• The Ukraine front is likely to move in 2023. But which way?
- Biden’s unsentimental foreign policy strategy
- ‘Victory’? Zelensky and Biden differ on the path forward for Ukraine.
- Zelensky’s role on the Washington stage is Ukrainian fighter
- How the algorithm tipped the balance in Ukraine
- A ‘good’ war gave the algorithm its opening, but dangers lurk
- Does Putin plan to flatten all of Ukraine? David Ignatius answered your que…
- A week in the life of Vladimir Putin
- Could Ukraine peace talks happen soon? David Ignatius answered your questio…
- Russia is in retreat in every major international forum
- Putin demands we listen to him. The US should take him up on it.
- As war rages in Ukraine, the world is realigning. Exhibit A: North Korea.
- Why hasn’t the Ukrainian army bombed Russia? David Ignatius answered your q…
- The consensus in a resolute Kyiv: There can be no compromise
- How the war in Ukraine has remade Europe
- How Ukrainians define their enemy: ‘It’s not Putin; it’s Russia’
- Russia, drawn deeper into Ukraine, loses grip on conflict on its periphery
- The West should hunker down against Putin’s latest aggression
- Could a nuclear escalation be contained? David Ignatius answered your quest…
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.
