Kaush Arha & George Scutaru
As U.S. and European elections approach, concerns about a frozen Ukraine conflict are spreading. They are fueled partly by Putin’s disingenuous and self-serving peace entreaties. A frozen conflict at existing battle lines would only solidify Russian gains. Consequently, a frozen conflict represents a Russian victory with an invitation to regroup and reinvade additional Ukraine territory. Russia has followed this playbook since 2014, and allowing it to annex Ukraine in stages will only encourage the behavior.
It is important to note that the United States and Europe have, in their considerable support of Ukraine, prevented a swift Russian annexation while severely handicapping Ukrainian counterstrike capabilities by restricting the types of weapons provided in aid packages and limiting the extent of their use. Consequently, the absence of a clear commitment to victory will ensure a frozen conflict. In a war against evil, there is no substitute for victory—for no peace will come but through strength. Proponents of frozen conflict, in effect, are calling for a long-simmering one.
Any forced cessation of hostilities would be a chimera. Hostilities would surely continue unofficially with reduced command and control and, thus, greater chaos and unpredictability. Serious consideration of the much-needed armistice should be preceded by meeting three conditions to secure regional peace and stability.
No comments:
Post a Comment