Richard Haass, former President of the Council of Foreign Relations, and Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow of the Council, have just published a truly scary article, “Redefining Success in Ukraine.” Pretty much everything is wrong in this article. Last spring, together with Putin’s prime US advocate Thomas Graham, Senior Director for Russia in the National Security Council under George W. Bush, Haass and Kupchan met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who was sanctioned by the United States.

As Senior Director for Europe in the National Security Council in the Obama administration, Kupchan took pride in blocking any delivery of lethal arms to Ukraine, claiming that he helped to avoid World War III, while in fact he facilitated Russia’s invasion in 2022. At that time, he was supported by President Barack Obama, while Vice President Joe Biden and his assistant Anthony Blinken wanted to deliver arms.

Strangely, Haass and Kupchan appear unaware that Putin has violated virtually all relevant agreements and lies persistently. It makes no sense to negotiate with such a man, but they do not even mention this aspect, indicating that they are not at liberty to discuss talks with Putin.

The essence of their proposal is: “The United States should begin consultations with Ukraine and its European partners on a strategy centered on Ukraine’s readiness to negotiate a cease-fire with Russia and to simultaneously switch its military emphasis from offense to defense.”

Parliament Okays Hire of 300 New Detectives to Fight Corruption
Similar topics of Interest

Parliament Okays Hire of 300 New Detectives to Fight Corruption

Fighting corruption is a key part of Ukraine's EU bid. Along with hiring new detectives at NABU, parliament also voted to strengthen another anti-corruption agency, the NACP.

This proposal makes no sense. First of all, Russia would just use a ceasefire to rearm, and the authors argue that “time will not be on Ukraine’s side if a high-intensity war drags on indefinitely...” It would seem that they want Ukraine to lose. Yet they want to “make clear to Russia that it cannot simply hope to outlast Ukraine.” These two assumptions are contradictory.

Haass and Kupchan proceed: “One option for the West is to do more of the same... The West can send more tanks, long-range missiles, and eventually F-16 fighter jets. But there is no silver bullet capable of turning the tide on the battlefield.” Don’t they know that this has not been done? A pro-Ukrainian argument is that this should finally be done. For no good reason, the Biden administration has held back the delivery of all potent weapons for a year or more, allowing Russia to build up its defenses. If the authors favored Ukraine, they should conclude: This must stop! Deliver all arms Ukraine needs as soon as possible!

A particularly laughable phrase is: “Russia’s economy and its defense industrial base are on a war footing. Moscow is also importing arms from North Korea and Iran…” Russia’s GDP is only 4 percent of the Western economies. With elementary effort, the West can easily defeat Russia economically. The issue is not whether the West can, but if it wants, which eluded Haass and Kupchan.

The defeatists Haass and Kupchan have nothing to offer Ukraine.

Neither author is a Russia specialist, but they confidently assert: “Putin appears politically secure and in control of the levers of power…” Really? Remember the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceaușescu, and its sudden collapse in a single day in December 1989? They must have heard of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s march on Moscow and the sudden anti-Semitic riots in Dagestan, suggesting that Russia is far more fragile. We know very little about what is happening in the Kremlin, but everything suggests that something is seriously wrong there.

The authors rightly bring up the threat of a new Trump presidency, but draw the wrong conclusion. This is not a reason for ceasefire; on the contrary, it is an argument for maximum US arms deliveries as soon as possible. Trump, Putin’s accolade, is all too likely to sell out Ukraine to Putin regardless of any flawed agreement.

Haass and Kupchan proceed to claim that “the US military has only finite resources.” While that is a truism, the United States has easily far more arms available than Ukraine needs to defeat Russia, so this is not an argument. As experts on the US military, they must know that.

But would Putin accept any agreement? “Putin just might seize the opportunity to stanch the bloodletting and try to bring Russia in from the cold. Still, it is much more likely that Moscow would spurn a cease-fire proposal.” Indeed, Haass and Kupchan actually acknowledge they write nonsense, so why do they write it?

What do they offer? “Guaranteeing Ukraine’s independence… modeled on Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, which provides for immediate consultations whenever ‘the territorial integrity, political independence, or security’ of a member is threatened.” This is no guarantee. The defeatists Haass and Kupchan have nothing to offer Ukraine. They just say: We will give you no more arms because we are mean and Trump may come back and he is even meaner. Rather than real arms and NATO membership, they offer another insubstantial 1994 Budapest memorandum.

Haass and Kupchan do not even call for the confiscation of the Russian Central Bank’s $300 billion of reserves frozen in the West that should be used for war reparations for Ukraine. They are all on Russia’s side. The West needs a serious strategy for Ukraine’s victory, not this drivel.

Anders Åslund is the author of “Russia’s Crony Capitalism: The Path from Market Economy to Kleptocracy.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.

To suggest a correction or clarification, write to us here
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter

Comments (6)
Philip Tummarello
This comment contains spoilers. Click here if you want to read.

Just remember the US military genius' predicted Ukraine would fall in 72 hrs. These men do not speak other than to enjoy the sound of their own voices.
Gavan Duffy
This comment contains spoilers. Click here if you want to read.

Europe must prepare for the eventuality that NATO under US leadership is becoming a lame duck. US institutions have been penetrated to a large extent by the extreme left and by Wokeism making decision making difficult. Only the European nations have an understanding of the threat Russia poses to their Democracy. The US is a long way from Europe so concerns itself less with the Russian threat.
Joseph Swanson
This comment contains spoilers. Click here if you want to read.

This is the way of the western wasp...understand this...just look around, their history is littered with examples of backstabbing.
This comment contains spoilers. Click here if you want to read.

People should be mindful of the careerism of both Haas and Kupchan. They both have been advisers to Administrations and they like the influence. They have trucked with the sanctioned Lavrov behind everyone's back. That's how much they like influence. They ignore that a ceasefire would let Putin off on the ICC arrest warrant and Russia wouldn't be subject to reparations. They're prepared to lie to win this argument. They lie that this war is in stalemate and that Zaluzhny thinks that's the case. He said he's stalled because he doesn't have the weapons that any NATO commander would demand for his own troops. Haas and Kupchan ignore the depredation on Russian logistics and command personnel Ukraine has brought down on Russia. Putin has moved his navy out of Sevastopol. They ignore the beachhead Ukraine has put on the left bank of the Dniepro and its increasing sustainability. Haas and Kupchan can't rebut this so they ignore it. They ignore the second front Putin enjoys in Gaza as well as the arms production that this will force the US and NATO to undertake. They ignore what a Putin victory will mean for Taiwan. There are all sorts of consequences they ignore for the sake of winning their argument. Their analysis is lame. It is useless as policy. But, as they say in NY City, I don't care what you say about me. Just spell my name right. They are careerists and will lie to win this argument. And the press will go along with them.
This comment contains spoilers. Click here if you want to read.

Timely response by authoritative expert in Russian politics and Russian economy. Well balanced and persuasive argumentation. Good job to respond to the shallow logic of the article by scarecrows.
This comment contains spoilers. Click here if you want to read.

Hey Anders, I’ve never heard of you or the two clowns that you ridicule. No one cares.

Sofia Yaresko
This comment contains spoilers. Click here if you want to read.

@Imokru2, You display your ignorance brilliantly.
This comment contains spoilers. Click here if you want to read.

@Imokru2, wow….stupid comment Russian troll. Anyone in an information free democracy (rules out Russia), who follows global economics would have heard of this internationally revered author. I’m just a midstream business advisor in Canada and have read quite a few articles by him which I’ve subsequently referred to my international bound clients. In the context of this article I agree with him on all points. I have no ties to either party in this war but am well aware of the negative impact of Russian political meddling and cybercrime on most democracies. Putins criminal regime must be toppled…dinner the better.