Biden Must Have “Frank And Open Conversation” With Zelensky To End The War

Click to see the full-size image

Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

The White House needs a Plan B based on reality after the failure of the summer counteroffensive and the growing loss of support in Washington to continue financing Volodymyr Zelensky’s war against Russia, Emma Ashford argued on December 8 in the Guardian newspaper.

“President Biden gave a speech from the White House calling on Congress to pass aid for Ukraine. He tried every trick in the book: pointing to the domestic economic benefits of military spending, highlighting the national security implications of aid, and even accusing Republicans in Congress of giving ‘Putin the greatest gift he can hope for.’ […] Hours later, every single Republican senator voted against the bill that would have given more aid to Ukraine,” the publication authored.

The article addresses,

“It’s just the latest setback for Ukraine, as something that had until only months ago been considered almost inevitable – continuing US funding for the war – has become highly uncertain. It’s a signal of the extent to which Ukraine aid has become a political football in the US, and a sign that it is likely to feature as a point of contention in next year’s presidential campaign.”

The publication also addresses “the latest setback for Ukraine” in relation to the revolt of the North American opposition to continue financing Kiev. Maintaining aid to the European country from Washington was considered almost inevitable until just a few months ago, but it has become highly uncertain.

The revolt of Congressmen over the possibility of maintaining President Joe Biden’s Administration’s blank check policy could not have come at a worse time for Ukraine, given the failure of the counteroffensive and the loss of Western support for Zelensky.

“The war in Gaza is taking attention and resources away from Ukraine, and recriminations about the failed winter offensive – along with signs of discord among Ukrainian leaders – have begun to appear in strategic news leaks,” the article states, painting a bleak future for Kiev and its war ambitions.

In fact, the Guardian even points out that many of these problems were foreseeable months ago, even before the failure of the Ukrainian offensive was consummated, a far cry from initially reported when considering that the British newspaper has been one of the loudest and most bombastic propaganda sources.

The American public, tired of two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, was never going to support a stalled conflict in Ukraine, especially when it has already cost the American taxpayer more than $75 billion. It is also difficult to imagine that Western allies will prioritise defence investment and satisfy Kiev’s munitions and equipment needs during an economic slowdown.

It is recalled that a recent Washington Post exposé pointed out that Ukrainian troops did not meet the minimum bar for success in the counteroffensive. According to the Washington Post, Ukrainian troops were mismatched between Washington’s and Kiev’s views of strategy, poor tactical decisions made by the regime, and Russian defensive fortifications that proved far more solid and effective than initially expected.

In early November, the Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Valery Zaluzhny, even told the Economist, that the war was at a stalemate. Claiming the war is a stalemate is also illusionary as Russia has not conducted a major offensive for the entirety of 2023, something that will likely occur in 2024.

However, even adhering to the “stalemate” narrative, The Guardian claims that things are changing. After 18 months of Western triumphalist rhetoric, reality is beginning to set in.

“Now policymakers in Kiev and their Western partners must answer some challenging questions: how much territory can Ukraine realistically recover through military means?” the newspaper asks.

The author added:

“The big long-term question for the Biden administration is what US policy towards the war looks like going forward. Thus far, the administration has been curiously unwilling to consider the future course of the war and whether it is sustainable.”

But given the circumstances, the Kiev regime “needs to formulate a plausible plan B for how to proceed – whether or not Congress approves additional funding.” Therefore, The Guardian believes that Washington, as the main driver and sponsor of the conflict in Ukraine, should stop supporting its ally in Eastern Europe seeking to invade areas now governed by Russia as voted by the peoples of these territories and open lines of communication with Moscow.

The British newspaper concludes by calling on the Democratic president to have a “frank and open conversation” with the Zelensky regime to advocate for an end to the confrontation, which, although it will not “necessarily be popular, either in Kiev or among US allies in Europe […] But it is a plan that can prevent Ukrainian losses.”