Long war or quick defeat? The American RAND Corporation presented an alarmist plan for the Biden administration

Sensational leaks about the Biden administration’s readiness to offer Vladimir Putin a deal on Ukraine are supported by a report by the influential American think tank RAND Corporation, recently published under the title “Avoiding a Long War in Ukraine.” A prolonged conflict in Ukraine is not in America’s interests: it creates risks of nuclear escalation if Russia loses, and risks of even greater losses for Ukraine if Russia wins, RAND experts say. The continuation of the war, in their opinion, increases the likelihood of a direct clash between Russia and NATO, increases the already significant US spending on assistance to Ukraine and the production of ever new weapons, and also diverts attention and resources from the central task of the Americans - the confrontation with China. And while Russia and Ukraine are not ready for any kind of agreement at this stage, the United States has four policy tools it could use to resolve the conflict: limiting support for Ukraine over time, making commitments to its security, providing guarantees of its neutrality and establishing conditions for lifting sanctions against Russia. However, the implementation of such a plan would be too similar to the capitulation of the Biden administration, and therefore it is unlikely to be adopted by it.

The information that President Joe Biden, through the head of the CIA William Burns, proposed a secret “peace for land” plan to Ukraine and Russia, published by the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung , became a worldwide sensation. According to the newspaper, the peace plan assumed that about 20% of Ukraine would remain under Russian control. The motive for this proposal was President Biden’s desire to avoid a protracted war, the publication writes, citing senior diplomats, and supporters of this view in Biden’s circle include his national security assistant Jack Sullivan and Burns himself, who believe that the Ukrainian conflict is diverting US attention from the confrontation with China.

This turn in the views of the American administration seems unexpected against the backdrop of decisive public statements from Washington and the relative cross-party consensus on fundamental issues of assistance to Ukraine in Congress. And although, according to some polls, the level of support for Ukraine in US public opinion has decreased somewhat, this decrease, as Re: Russia already wrote , does not look critical and rather reflects the stabilization of the information background around the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

However, additional light on this turn in the thoughts of the US leadership is shed by the report “Avoiding a Long War in Ukraine” , prepared by the influential RAND Corporation, which appeared in the public domain at the end of January. The report argues that a protracted war is not in US interests because it increases the likelihood of Moscow using nuclear weapons after significant setbacks on the battlefield and the likelihood of direct conflict between Russia and NATO forces, which also almost inevitably leads to nuclear escalation and the need to avoid which is absolute US priority. While the prospect of Ukraine recapturing all Russian-occupied territories is still not very plausible, Moscow's mobilization could stabilize the front line and allow Russian troops to mount a successful offensive in 2023.

On the contrary, allied military assistance to Ukraine may face a number of difficulties. Already, the weapons depots of Western countries are empty, it is necessary to increase the production of new weapons and ammunition ( the Financial Times also wrote about this problem the other day). Finally, RAND experts also dwell on the argument that sounds in a retelling of the sources of the Swiss newspaper: the conflict in Ukraine is drawing away the attention and resources of Americans, which need to be focused on the confrontation with China. In addition, the continuation of the conflict makes Russia increasingly dependent on China and thereby plays into its hands, which is contrary to the interests of the United States.

Based on research on mechanisms for stopping wars, analysts point to the main (and fairly typical) obstacles to negotiations: mutual optimism of the parties regarding the favorable prospects for war and mutual pessimism regarding the domestic political consequences of peace. However, RAND experts believe that the United States has four policy instruments that could be used to mitigate these obstacles: clarifying plans for future support for Ukraine (that is, indicating the time-limited nature of support), making commitments regarding its security , providing guarantees of its neutrality and establishing conditions for lifting sanctions against Russia.

Despite the systematic presentation of this position, it should be noted that most of these arguments are already well known and have become the subject of critical discussion. The image losses as a result of US concessions to Moscow will be very high: Washington will actually demonstrate the limitations of its capabilities in international deterrence. This will also adversely affect the prospects for its confrontation with China and increase the likelihood of a military conflict around Taiwan. In addition, as the last nine years have shown, within the framework of the doctrine of avoiding a direct collision with Russia, the United States does not have any tools to ensure the security of Ukraine. In this scenario, the Biden presidency, which began with the “flight from Afghanistan,” threatens to end with capitulation to Putin.