by Luigi Ippolito correspondent from London
“If the US used its influence on both Ukraine and Russia to push for a ceasefire, it would happen: And yet the Biden administration does not appear to be engaged in diplomacy.”
Niall Ferguson, the British historian and one of the most brilliant intellectuals on the international scene, has never shied away from controversy. And his positions also provoke discussions about the war in Ukraine.
Russians focus on Donbass, negotiations in Turkey continue: are we seeing the beginning of the end of this war?
“There are two reasons to believe the end is near and one reason not to believe it. The reasons behind the first scenario are that the Russians obviously have a problem: the poor performance of their forces and the high casualties they have suffered, coupled with logistical problems that are difficult to solve. So the announcement to focus on Donbass came as no surprise. The second reason is that Zelensky continues to signal the will to find an agreement on the basis of Ukraine’s neutrality: this is just one of the problems that are more difficult to solve territorially, because every day the success of the Ukrainian resistance lowers the willingness to make concessions to the Russians. But Zelenskyi said several times that he should rule out NATO entry and be open to neutrality, with security guarantees ».
But where is the problem?
“The problem is the United States: because the Biden administration has embarked on a strategy aimed at prolonging the war, in the belief that this will lead to regime change in Russia. Biden’s socalled slip was not a slip by any means: officials have repeatedly pointed to what I call the cynical but optimistic strategy of prolonging the war and waiting for sanctions to bring down Putin. However, I find this strategy extremely risky and poorly thought out. If the US used its leverage with both Ukraine and Russia to push for a ceasefire, this would happen: Yet the Biden administration does not appear to be engaging in diplomacy. That’s a serious mistake: And the risks of prolonging the war are far greater than Biden seems to realize. He might be lucky and maybe Putin really fell: but if you bet the future of Ukraine on this result, the odds seem terrible to me ».
What are the biggest risks?
“The obvious thing is that Ukraine will be destroyed to the point where it is no longer a sustainable nation, perhaps with ten million refugees. Furthermore, if you threaten Putin with regime change, the chances increase that he will resort to desperate measures to avoid defeat: and one of those desperate measures is the use of nuclear weapons. He is not Saddam or Gaddafi: he has a larger nuclear arsenal than anyone else in the world and it is incredibly irresponsible to talk about regime change under these circumstances. Putin must be brought to the negotiating table: we must take advantage of the fact that he is in trouble and not encourage him to take desperate measures ».
But as long as Putin is in power, isn’t that a problem for world stability?
“And what would we achieve with regime change in Russia? Even if the outcome were to our liking, China would benefit. The whole American strategy is based on a profound and strategic misjudgment that makes me very nervous for the next few weeks.”
Is a division of Ukraine inevitable at this point?
“Right now, Ukraine has won a moral victory by not being defeated, but if it waits, the balance may shift in Russia’s favor: and in that case, they may become more aggressive in their territorial claims. We don’t want eastern and western Ukraine, we don’t want to repeat the experience of Germany or Korea: the division of Korea did not create a stable situation. We must think of Ukraine as a kind of Israel in Eastern Europe: not a member of NATO, but sufficiently backed by the West to prevent future aggression. But if the war continues, there is a risk that Russia will capture more territory before it becomes impossible for Putin to continue hostilities: The reason for an immediate ceasefire is that we must capitalize on Ukraine’s moral victory.
What model of neutrality can we consider?
Finland is the most obvious example: it functioned as an open and democratic society even though it was neutral and had to be on good terms with the USSR. The great mistake of Western politics was to flash the option of joining NATO without really having the intention. If we weren’t honest, we should have taken it off the table back in 2014 and demanded something in return from Russia. Instead, we are now in a position to accept neutrality under pressure, which is much worse, with the possibility of territorial claims that will be very difficult to sell to the Ukrainians. We now have to save what we can and the only way is a Finnish model that Zelensky understood: he wants security guarantees, but if they don’t give them, the US will be a weak agreement ».
And this is where America comes in again.
“We shouldn’t be surprised: the USA has held the key to peace in Europe since 1916. At every turning point in European history, it was not the Europeans who brought peace, but the United States: at the end of World War I, at the end of World War II, then with the establishment of NATO and after the Cold War also to negotiate German reunification and to end the war in Bosnia, which the Europeans could not achieve. We have to be realistic: if the US doesn’t commit to peace, it won’t happen. And that’s why I believe the Biden administration is pursuing a very dangerous strategy that could prolong the war not by weeks but by months or years.”
March 30, 2022 (Modification March 30, 2022 | 08:10)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED