| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Long war. RAND |
| 2023-01-28 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. [Telegra.ph] In a new report, the RAND Corporation examines the course of the war in Ukraine. The report came out with the title "How to avoid a long war." Rand in their report make a note that they consider the war in Ukraine only in the context of US interests in it. The authors of the report consider 5 important, from their point of view, aspects that can determine the trajectory of the conflict: • possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia The use of nuclear weapons by Russia On the first aspect of RAND, they could not say the essence. They just wrote that in the case of the use of nuclear weapons by the Russian Federation, the response from the West should be immediate. Possible escalation of the conflict to NATO/RF The second aspect is of great concern to RAND, as they believe that the involvement of NATO in the conflict (ie, apparently, the introduction of troops) may happen due to an unintentional incident. As it was after the fall of the Ukrainian rocket in Poland. Territorial control But with the third aspect (territorial control), everything is very ambiguous. While RAND acknowledges that it is in the interests of the United States to transfer the territories returned by Russia to Ukrainian control, they do understand that this provides absolutely no guarantees for the end of the conflict. From their point of view, if crests seize the former regions, then Russia will in any case react to this with a new round of escalation. If Ukraine accepts the borders of December 2022, then there are no guarantees that the Russian Federation will not go further to return the territories. At the same time, RAND emphasizes that the territories recently included by the Russian Federation into its composition should not be recognized at the international level as part of Russia. RAND poinst out that no matter who controls the territories, this in any case leads to economic costs for the United States: if the crests conquer the territories, then the United States bears the costs in the form of funds to restore the economy of the Pig , and if the territories remain under the control of the Russian Federation, then the costs will go to military aid Khokhols. the longer the conflict, the more costs the United States moreover will incur. Duration of the conflict The duration of the conflict also plays an important role for the US. The main advantages of a long war for pendos include: the weakening of the Russian Federation, while it is occupied by Ukraine, the reduction of Europe's dependence on energy from Russia. However, further conflict entails far more risks than benefits. These risks include: War between Russia and NATO (highest risk); New territorial acquisitions of Russia; Cessation of the war RAND consider 3 scenarios for ending the war: Absolute victory; For RF: Public rhetoric of the Russian Federation: the transition from the rhetoric of the overthrow of the Kyiv regime to the rhetoric of non-repudiation of negotiations; For Ukraine: Front stagnation; Truth This option, according to the authors, does not imply a full-fledged solution to the conflict, since it will retain the general tension at the borders and will not resolve political contradictions. Nevertheless, this option will be bad for the Russian Federation, since it involves the creation of demilitarized zones and the payment of reparations. Political settlement A variant somewhat similar to the previous one, but involving the regulation of a much larger number of political issues. Despite the fact that the parties may not agree on the length of the borders and control over the territories, this option, according to RAND, will allow the parties to determine other areas of interest, as well as make Ukraine a non-bloc state, as was originally intended in the speech of the Russian authorities. The authors of RAND see the option of a political settlement as the most beneficial for the United States, since it will allow the Pendos to maintain the status quo on the geopolitical map. However, it is less likely than the option of a truce, since it is not clear that the parties are striving for a final settlement of the conflict. RAND stress that the United States should put regular pressure on the Russian Federation and give Ukrainians as much help as necessary to force Russia into a peace treaty. Obstacles to Ending the Conflict In general, the main obstacle to the end of the conflict, according to RAND, is that the parties are optimistic in their favor about its further course. At the same time, for the United States, it would be more beneficial if both sides were optimistic about the end of the war, and not its escalation. An important factor here is that, unlike the Russian Federation, proposals for negotiations are not beneficial to Ukraine at all, since this entails too many political risks within the country. RAND also notes that both sides perceive each other as an aggressor, which means they do not trust that the enemy will abide by the peace treaty. It is also important for the Russian Federation that Ukraine does not join NATO, and that sanctions against Russia itself be lifted. But the bottom line is that no peace treaty will give such guarantees. What the States Should Do According to RAND, the US must adhere to the following policy in order to achieve a political solution to the war: Draw up a clear schedule for the supply of Western aid to Khokhls, and also set out the need to de-escalate the conflict as conditions for its provision. Such a technique, according to RAND, will make it possible for the Russian Federation to think that support for Ukraine has been weakened; Try to provide Ukraine with a neutral non-bloc status. This option involves risks not only in terms of compliance with obligations between the parties, but within NATO itself. Since not all members will be ready to follow this approach. But the option of easing sanctions after the RAND war is almost completely swept aside, since it carries not only political costs, but economic ones (after all, as long as there are sanctions, Europe's dependence on energy from the Russian Federation is decreasing). |
| Posted by:badanov |