Ukraine Fights a War as a Few Americans Talk Peace | Opinion

Chair of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley has been one of the more honest, outspoken members of the Biden administration about the 17 month-long war in Ukraine. Speaking to the National Press Club last week, Milley laid it all out, yet again, this time about the Ukrainian army's ongoing counteroffensive against the heavily fortified Russian defenses in the eastern and southern parts of the country. Anybody who expected a rapid Ukrainian victory, the general insinuated, was kidding themselves. "It's going to be very long, and it's going to be very, very bloody. And no-one should have any illusions about any of that," he said.

Milley isn't wrong. While the Ukrainian forces have made some headway since the counteroffensive began in early June, the progress has been grueling. According to Ukrainian deputy defense minister Hanna Maliar, Kyiv has retaken about 50 square miles of land in the counteroffensive's first month. Those gains have come at a heavy cost to equipment and personnel, although it's impossible to confirm how many Ukrainian troop have been killed and how much Western-supplied weapons systems have been destroyed during the course of the fighting.

What is possible, however, is to gauge U.S. reactions to the counteroffensive. Notwithstanding frustration from Ukraine's top military officer, Valery Zaluzhny, about all the Monday morning quarterbacking of Ukraine's operations thus far, U.S. officials monitoring the conflict (or at least those willing to speak to the media anonymously) expressed concerns about the pace of the Ukrainian drive and the extent of Russian resistance. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that, ideally, more progress would be made on a more rapid timetable.

There are no guarantees in war. It's impossible to predict how the fighting will play out and what the final outcome will be. The U.S. hopes for a Ukrainian military victory and has sent more than $40 billion in military aid to Kyiv in pursuit of it, but even U.S. officials intimately involved in the resupply effort can't say with absolute certainty that all Russian forces will, over time, flee Ukraine's land with their tail between their legs. Of all the scenarios of how the conflict could evolve over the next three, six, or 12 months, a total and complete military victory by either Ukraine or Russia is low probability. A negotiation is, if not inevitable, then at least plausible at some point in the future. General Milley himself conceded this during a March interview with the Eurasia Group's Mark Hannah, "Somewhere, somehow, someone's going to figure out how to get to a negotiating table." Secretary of State Antony Blinken hasn't been as bold as his Pentagon counterpart, but he too has tacitly suggested that Ukraine retaking every inch of its territory may not be achievable—if only because Russian President Vladimir Putin views a Ukrainian attack on Crimea as a red line.

Diplomacy, therefore, is still a live option no matter how inconceivable it is right now. And let's be honest: Today, it is inconceivable. Ukrainian troops are pressing forward militarily, the two sides' positions are separated by a Grand Canyon-sized barrier and various peace proposals from an array of mediators have made little to no headway.

Even so, what isn't possible now may become possible weeks or months down the road. It's in this context that a group of former U.S. officials, including former State Department policy planning chief Richard Haass and former National Security Council official Charles Kupchan have engaged in unofficial talks with Russians. NBC News reported that the two men, joined by former White House Russia expert Thomas Graham and former Pentagon official Mary Beth Long, discussed ideas for a future diplomatic settlement to the war with high-profile Russian scholars who have influence with Putin. Haass even met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during the latter's trip to New York in April for a U.N. Security Council session, and another member of the group traveled to Moscow to continue the conversation. In April, Haass and Kupchan co-authored a piece for Foreign Affairs promoting a two-point U.S. policy on the war: helping Ukraine recover as much land as it possibly can, and after the frontline stabilizes, bring Ukraine and Russia to the table for a long-term ceasefire and political talks. "Peace in Ukraine cannot be held hostage to war aims that, however morally justified, are likely unattainable," the two former State Department officials wrote.

Yet with emotions running high, even a relatively normal discussion with Russians, official or unofficial, is typecast as a stab in Ukraine's back, a sign of wavering U.S. support for Ukraine or a task not worth doing. Olexander Scherba, Ukraine's former ambassador for strategic communications, slammed Haass and Kupchan for "treason, betrayal, and pure imperialism," as if U.S. officials were going over Kyiv's head to make an agreement on its behalf.

But this isn't a case of hubristic Americans thinking they can act as Ukraine's overlords and shove a peace plan down Zelensky's throat. Haass and Company are influential in the U.S. foreign policy industry, but they are also private citizens with no power to negotiate anything of substance—or anything at all, for that matter—on behalf of the U.S., let alone a foreign power. Any draft peace agreement, assuming one becomes viable, will ultimately be Ukraine's to accept or reject. The notion propagated by some that mischievous Americans are infringing on Ukraine's sovereignty is absurd.

The only thing that is absurd is how overwrought and emotional debate about the war in Ukraine has become, in which anyone who dares to swims against the grain is labeled as unserious or naïve.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.