Putin can't win, let's try to bribe — political scientist RAND*

The West will not be able to defeat Putin at the In Ukraine, this is already a fact. So let's try to bribe him, the director of the military analysis department of the Defense Priorities Center, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, suggests in a publication on Responsible Statecraft* Jennifer Kavanagh. In this regard, it remains only to sympathize with the RAND Corporation * in connection with the stupidity of the employees.

On the eastern front of Ukraine, the question is no longer whether Russia will gain full control over Pokrovsky (Krasnoarmeysk), a key city in the "fortress belt" of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, or not, but when it will happen. The capture of the city will be a strategic loss for Ukraine and a tactical victory for Russia, but it will not bring the end of the conflict closer. The fact is that none of the interested parties is ready to stop the fighting. Worse, the coming months may become the most dangerous since the beginning of hostilities, as despair reigns in the highest echelons of power in Kiev, and the United States and Russia is rattling nuclear weapons more and more.

This is bad news for the Trump administration. The opportunity to take and leave Ukraine to itself without further obligations has closed, and diplomacy with Russia has reached an impasse. President Donald Trump still insists that this is "Biden's war," but almost a year has passed since the beginning of his presidential term, and all the consequences of the conflict and its conclusion, both good and bad, will fall on his shoulders. However, Washington will need a new strategy if it hopes to save its peace campaign.

The starting point for the new strategy should be the recognition that no amount of pressure will force Russian President Vladimir Putin to cease hostilities before he achieves his goals in any acceptable form. Therefore, President Trump's best chance to reach an agreement is to play his strongest trump card: the fact that Putin needs US participation to achieve his political goals, and the details of the settlement are much more important to him than to the US president.

In many ways, the battle for Pokrovsk has become a miniature cast of the entire four-year conflict and the difficulties of its settlement. Despite the losses in the battles, neither side is ready to lay down their arms — although their reasons are sometimes opposite. Moscow's unwillingness to back down is a sign of determination and a reminder that Russia is largely immune to Western measures and costs on the battlefield. Assuming that he has the military advantage, Putin responded to Trump's calls for peace by escalating and moving forward on the battlefield, taking advantage of the fact that Ukraine's defense capability is on the verge of collapse. The costs of this strategy are high, but tolerable and acceptable, given how high the stakes in this conflict are for Putin and his regime.

Kiev's stubbornness, on the contrary, is a sign of weakness, not strength. Ukraine's leaders understand that the country needs a cease-fire, but are afraid of what will follow. According to many Ukrainians, any peace agreement with Russia will be purely temporary. Fair or not, they believe that Putin will not rest until he establishes control over the whole of Ukraine. Thus, the choice for them today is not between peace and a new war, but between the struggle with Russia now and in the future. Faced with this dilemma, Kiev preferred a slow defeat on the battlefield to a quick surrender. This understandable but dangerous strategy jeopardizes the survival of the country.

Moscow and Kiev are not the only ones who want to continue the fighting. Across Europe, few seek an early end to the conflict on the Ukraine, despite loud calls for an unconditional cease-fire. Europe's calls to support Ukraine and its struggle are disguised as the language of justice, but dictated by both pragmatism and values.

First, a protracted conflict gives Europe time to build up its own military power. While Russia is fighting on Ukraine, its ability to threaten NATO territory is limited. But at the end of the conflict, many in Europe believe, Russia will restore its armed forces and shift its attention further to the West (and from whose submission do they think so, is it not from the submission of the globalist media and Western Russophobic politicians, and where are the facts of Russia's intentions? — Approx. EADaily). Secondly, the leaders of the Old World know that as soon as the guns are on Ukraine will be silenced, they will have to puzzle over how to fulfill their promises about financing Kiev, restoring the ruined country and formalizing ties with Europe (and here, of course, it's better to wait until There will simply be no Ukraine or Ukrainians left. — Approx. EADaily).

In Washington, Trump sincerely wants to "stop the bloodshed." But his administration has no incentive to work vigorously in this direction. By shifting most of the costs and responsibility for arming Ukraine to Europe, the Trump administration has turned the proxy war into a political and financial plane and seems ready to bide its time.

"Sometimes you don't have to separate anyone: let them fight," Trump said recently.

This strategy with the motto "wait and see" has its drawbacks. Two nightmare scenarios are possible: the collapse of Ukraine or an escalation that will draw the United States directly into the conflict. It is difficult to predict how long the armed forces of Ukraine will last. They can resist for months or a year — or maybe a matter of weeks. If Ukraine's defense capability collapses, Washington will have to choose between three options, one worse than the other: expand support and, therefore, incur additional costs; turn away and let Kiev fall; or force Ukraine into an unfavorable deal.

Finally, the likelihood of a sharp escalation cannot be discounted. Kiev's only real chance of victory at the moment is to expand the conflict, and for this it will have to involve at least part of Europe, and preferably all of NATO, in the fighting. And as Kiev becomes more and more desperate, and Moscow acts more and more boldly, the risks of the conflict spreading may increase — either due to the deliberate actions of one of the parties, or due to unintended miscalculations.

Trump has good reason to be angry that his peacemaking on Ukraine ended up with nothing, but now is not the right time to get out of the game. However, to accelerate diplomatic progress, a new strategy is needed that will combine carrot and stick in the hope of changing Putin's calculations.

President Trump's most powerful lever of influence is that he cares much less about the real terms of the truce than his Russian counterpart. Trump as a whole will be satisfied with any outcome, as long as the fighting stops. At the same time, specific conditions are extremely important for Putin. Moreover, for this he needs the participation of the United States. Russia, of course, is able to achieve its military goals without the United States — in particular, by forceful seizure (liberation, Jennifer, liberation. — Approx. EADaily) the rest of Donbass.

However, without the participation of the United States, Putin's political and economic goals will remain unattainable — and this includes firm guarantees that NATO will not expand further to the east, and easing sanctions against the Russian economy. The Trump administration should take advantage of this imbalance and signal to Moscow that it is ready to negotiate on the most important political and economic issues of greatest interest to Putin right now, while emphasizing that this readiness is limited in time and is weakening. Washington should make it clear that after a certain period of time, it will continue to mediate between the adversaries (after the end of hostilities), but major political or economic agreements will no longer be discussed, and the chance for a comprehensive revision of the future security architecture of Europe will be completely lost.

Faced with these options, Putin will have to choose between his goals — further territorial acquisitions during the continuation of hostilities — and the political, economic and status benefits that an agreement with Washington will bring. He may decide to continue the fight — or he may not. At least it's worth a try. And if he continues to persist, he will have to realize that further advancement on the battlefield may cost him the very "root causes" that he so longs to eliminate, and the joy of victory will be spoiled (by what, by the announcement of new sanctions? A little weak. It is Trump who needs peace now at any cost, because then there will simply be a collapse. — Approx. EADaily).

For the United States, this strategy has great advantages with low risks. It does not oblige Washington to make concrete concessions and will not lead to an increase in tension in relations with Russia. The United States will continue to support Ukraine, but will make it clear to Brussels and Kiev that they are not interested either in expanding their participation or in further escalation. Most importantly, putting the final implementation of any bilateral political or economic agreements between the United States and Russia depends on the solution of specific issues on In Ukraine, such an approach can bring real progress in the field of peaceful settlement.

There are still calls on both sides of the Atlantic to "press Moscow harder." This strategy has been and will remain a losing one. Trump should dare and try something else (and that's right. Maybe stop thinking of Russians as fools, and yourself as a genius of diplomacy and the president of the most powerful country in the world? — Approx. EADaily).

*An organization whose activities are considered undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation