Why does US want talks between Ukraine and Russia? Mikhail Shereshevskiy's analysis

In recent days the leading newspapers associated with the US political and corporate elite -the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal - have written about the need for Ukraine to sit down at the negotiating table with Russia. Although these theses are presented in the softest and most flexible way possible - no one openly makes such demands - the general idea of the US Democratic administration led by Joe Biden is becoming more and more obvious. They do not want to put too much pressure on Ukraine, but at the same time, they are unequivocally urging Kyiv to reconsider its course by removing the idea of refusing to negotiate with the current Kremlin leadership.

The New York Times reports that disagreement has emerged at the highest levels of the United States government over whether to press Ukraine to seek a diplomatic end to its war with Russia, with America’s top general urging negotiations while other advisers to President Biden argue that it is too soon.

Gen. Mark A. Milley has made the case in internal meetings that the Ukrainians have achieved about as much as they could reasonably expect on the battlefield before winter sets in and so they should try to cement their gains at the bargaining table, according to officials informed about the discussions.

At the same time, other senior officials have resisted the idea, maintaining that neither side is ready to negotiate and that any pause in the fighting would only give President Vladimir Putin a chance to regroup. While Biden’s advisers believe the war will likely be settled through negotiations eventually, officials said, they have concluded that the moment is not ripe and the United States should not be seen as pressuring the Ukrainians to hold back while they have momentum.

The debate, which the officials described on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss sensitive deliberations, has spilled out into public in recent days as General Milley made public comments hinting at his private advice. “Seize the moment,” he said in a speech in New York on November 9.

"I get the feeling that the administration is considering diplomacy," says Charles A. Kupchan, a Georgetown University professor who was President Barack Obama's adviser on Europe and recently wrote an essay advocating negotiations. - They are trying to thread the needle. They want to introduce the possibility of a diplomatic solution to the situation without putting a lot of pressure on Ukraine." He added: "So far they are only trying to set the table, but that does not mean sitting at the table."

Earlier, the Washington Post put it in the same vein, cautiously pointing out that "Kyiv should not reject the very possibility of negotiations with Moscow, although, of course, no one is trying to force it to do so".

Almost simultaneously, a Wall Street Journal article appeared. The publication reports that the Biden administration won’t give Ukraine advanced drones despite pleas from Kyiv and a bipartisan group of members of Congress, a reflection of the limit of the kinds of weaponry Washington is willing to provide for Ukraine’s defence. The US decision deprives Ukraine of the kind of advanced weapons that Kyiv has been asking for months. The Pentagon declined the request based on concerns that providing the Gray Eagle MQ-1C drones could escalate the conflict and signal to Moscow that the US was providing weapons that could target positions inside Russia, US officials and other people familiar with the decision said.

Members of Congress from both parties have pushed the administration to give Ukraine the medium-altitude, armed drones that can fly for more than 24 hours. In a September letter, 17 lawmakers urged the administration to speed up its review process about providing Gray Eagles, which spurred a briefing on Capitol Hill about the decision.

It was not the first decision of this kind, but this time Washington decided to publicly and unambiguously express its opinion on the matter, accompanying it - judging by the press publications - with explicit hints of the need for Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.

What is the US hesitation and caution about?

There is an internal debate in America, including dissatisfaction with US aid to Ukraine on the part of some Republicans (the isolationist minority) and some Democrats (the progressive minority). But at the same time, most congressmen of both parties are in favour of continued aid to Ukraine. Moreover, according to opinion polls, such aid is supported by around 80 per cent of voters.

The Americans have a problem with the supply of certain types of ammunition. Another important article from the Wall Street Journal mentions the consequences of the deindustrialisation of the US. In fact, globalisation, the transfer of industry to other countries, and the fascination with delusional "post-industrial theories" according to which industry is unnecessary and everything will depend on the service sector, have seriously undermined the military-industrial base. America is short of conventional factories and military industry, and there have been difficulties in supplying shells to the Armed Forces. But on the whole, the power of the American and their NATO allies' military-industrial complexes are great. It is doubtful that this factor can be seen as central.

The US position on Ukraine is determined by two other factors - the threat of nuclear war and the threat of a Chinese attack on Taiwan.

The nuclear factor

No matter how you look at it, Russia has nuclear weapons. Although the probability of their use is extremely low, it still cannot be ruled out completely. An escalation of this level would be dangerous for the entire planet, including the leaders of the US. America's ruling class, i.e., the top parties, bureaucracy, and the top corporations, want to eat well, sleep well and enjoy their power and privileges. It is these people who run the United States and they do not want trouble. They do not want the constant fear that makes life difficult for them.

China and the Taiwan issue

On the other hand, the US cannot refuse to support Ukraine - support that can ensure its success on the battlefield. If they do, it will become clear that Russia can use its armed forces again to expand its external influence. After all, Russian patriots consider not only Kherson but also northern Kazakhstan as theirs and that is no secret. What then are any international agreements backed by Washington and its partners worth if force decides everything, and that force does not belong to America?

Just as importantly, perhaps, more importantly, the events in Ukraine are being closely watched by Beijing. China's leadership has long declared that it is capable, if necessary, to take back the island of Taiwan by military means. It is a de facto independent state of 24 million people of predominantly Chinese origin and one of the largest semiconductor manufacturing centres on the planet. Beijing considers the island its territory, while the Taiwanese think otherwise.

Washington has declared itself a military ally of Taipei, Taiwan's capital, and has periodically signalled that it is ready to defend the island in the event of a Chinese attack. The Americans, however, use cautiously ambiguous language, so it is unclear whether or not they would defend Taiwan with their own military.

According to a leading Israeli political analyst, Alon Pinkus, a former advisor to various Israeli governments, Washington is using the situation in Ukraine as a showcase, showing to China its willingness to support its ally. Heavy sanctions have been imposed on Russia that could undermine its economy, and the AFU is receiving modern weapons capable of inflicting serious losses on the Russian army. All this is an unequivocal warning to the PRC as well.

If the Ukrainian story ends for the Russian Federation with the loss of what it was able to take in Ukraine, for China it will be an indication of the senselessness of the attempt to seize Taiwan. But if Russia manages to get out of the conflict by acquiring new lands, this will be a signal for China.

An attack by the Chinese army on Taiwan, if successful in turn, would cause the collapse of all American influence in East Asia. Many states in the region would be forced to abandon their current relatively independent or more or less pro-American policies and come under the wing of the PRC. What is the point of aligning with the US if they are unable to defend their allies in the face of a Chinese armed offensive?

If one looks at the situation in Ukraine through the prism of this reasoning, everything that is happening resembles a house of cards. US concessions to Moscow could lead to the collapse of all American global hegemony, not only because of Russia but above all because of China, the new rising global power, also possessing nuclear weapons. Imperialist conflicts look like this. Following a power's refusal to protect its interests and help its allies, it becomes weaker and others take its place.

Between Scylla and Charybdis

As a result, politicians in Washington are trying to find a narrow path between Scylla and Charybdis. And US control over what Ukraine does is beyond doubt - the country's economy and armed forces are totally dependent on supplies of equipment and financial aid from the Americans and their allies.

Perhaps the Americans, in case of future major successes of the AFU, will force them to stop at the borders of Crimea, or maybe elsewhere.