This diverse and colorful theater was created by the Kremlin director for only one spectator: Joe Biden.
Recently, colleagues from StopFake drew attention to the serious media coverage of the article by political scientist of the American think tank RAND Samuel Sharap. The research corporation RAND, which, among other things, carried out a project to reform the security and defense sector at the request of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council at the expense of individuals, is a very powerful expert organization. Because of this, as well as because of the rather suspicious activity and mass reposts of the article on social networks, the proposals set out by Samuel Sharap are discussed a lot.
Samuel Sharap’s multifaceted and professional article can be reduced to promoting a simple narrative: “The United States cannot afford to fight for Ukraine, so to avoid escalation on the threshold of Europe, it is necessary to force the Kyiv authorities to cede to the Kremlin Donbass will have its own judicial and law enforcement system, and will delegate its representatives to the Ukrainian parliament . “
It is not the first time that Sharap has proposed such an approach to resolving issues with Russia. Thus, according to StopFake, Sharap proposed a similar approach to solving the problems of the Russian-occupied territories of Georgia. In his opinion, for the benefit of the most unrecognized republics, Georgia could give up its principles.
This style of resolving geopolitical and diplomatic conflicts in favor of the Kremlin should not surprise you. Sharap is an expert on the foreign policy of Russia and the former Soviet states and US-Russian relations. He was a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Moscow Center; was a Fulbright Fellow at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. Mr. Sharap also speaks at the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together analysts loyal to the Russian government from around the world, where Putin gives them guidance on how to properly understand Russia’s foreign policy.
Samuel Sharap has also been working in Ukraine for a long time. Back on January 18, 2010, in the pages of the American publication Foreign Policy, Sharap assured that Ukraine would be much better off without Viktor Yushchenko, who tried to sever ties with the Kremlin. The coming to power of Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko, on the contrary, will help stabilize the situation in Ukraine. Well… Navrochiv. However, even after his predictions did not come true, Mr. Sharap did not deviate one iota from his narratives. In November 2014, almost at the height of the war, he stressed that Ukraine was obliged to reach an agreement with Russia. At that time, Samuel Sharap wrote (and he was actively quotedRussian publications) that the then Vice President Joe Biden was pursuing the wrong policy towards Ukraine, declaring full support for Kyiv – this, they say, only deepens the conflict. He repeated almost the same words in November 2021.
As seven years ago in 2014, when Henry Kissinger and his colleagues planned for Putin a conference on the division of Ukraine like the “Yalta” on the Finnish island of Boysto, at the end of 2021 Sharapa also had admirers and a support group.
Citing Sharap, StopFake draws attention to one of his key phrases about the military threat near Ukraine’s borders: “A disgusting compromise ,” says RAND, ” can be the best hope for everyone .” In this way, he pushes readers to the unpleasant realization that the “shower” of Ukraine is a disgrace, but, in the end, a convenient and comfortable way out for the White House. After all, according to Sharap, ” if Putin can get what he wants, without war, there will probably be no war .”
American journalist Christopher Miller, who worked in Kyiv for a long time, collected on Twitter a kind of textbook of those who in one way or another supported the views of Samuel Sharap. Among such contributors are many outstanding people who have a significant influence on the Western expert community. For example, the program director of the expert think-tank International Crisis Group is Dr. Olga Oliker , who previously worked in the same RAND as Sharap. In 2016, she and her colleagues conducted research commissioned by RAND in Kyiv, meeting with local experts.
In April 2020, the International Crisis Group, under its leadership, published the report ” Peace in Ukraine I: The European War “, which outraged and disappointed the Ukrainian expert community. After a summit took place in December 2019 , at which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with Vladimir Putin, European experts began to propose a move to a policy of gradually reducing the sanctions burden on the Kremlin. In particular, the report suggested starting to consider lifting sanctions on Russia.
Less than a week after the report was published, some of its theses were criticized by former US Ambassador to Ukraine and Atlantic Council Eurasian Program Manager John Herbst. Following the Atlantic Council , the European Expert Association also issued a call not to legitimize the international crimes of the Putin regime .
Something tells me that this time, too, Olga Oliker’s point of view will not be appreciated by Ukrainian experts. Referring to Sharapa’s Twitter article, she said: ” Instead of getting angry with Sam Sharapa, ask yourself what it takes to create a more viable policy, as he says Western countries are not going to fight for Ukraine and Russia is going to fight for Ukraine. escalation and, worse, the status quo . “
In her long Twitter post, Ms. Oliker argues that sanctions, pressure and aid to Ukraine have not forced the Kremlin to take steps to escalate the conflict, while Western countries’ willingness to do more important things remains uncertain. So, Sharap is a great man who raised the issue of “draining” Ukraine as one of the options to be considered.
Like Samuel Sharap and Olga Oliker, there are several other experts often quoted in American publications. One should think that all this argument, with a very logical and professional explanation, that further sanctions against the Kremlin and careless promises to Kyiv, which could lead to an uncontrolled escalation in relations between Moscow and Washington, has long been on the table, if not in Joe Biden, then in Victoria. Nuland and Anthony Blinken. They know and think about it, although they do not say anything in public.
We must not forget that the White House is critical to preventing an alliance between the Kremlin and China. Especially in light of the signing by the two states of a “road map” of closer ties in the military sphere.
Given Joe Biden’s dramatic drop in political ratings, the current White House administration simply cannot afford to lose another foreign policy after the failure of Afghanistan’s policies.
At the same time, the endless raising of stakes in the game with the Kremlin is also very tiring and does not promise anything good, because Western politicians will never go to a real conflict with the potential threat of nuclear weapons, because they will be torn apart by their own electorate.
By reaching an agreement with Vladimir Putin, provided that Vladimir Zelensky accepts at least part of the script written in Moscow and Washington, everyone (except Ukraine, of course) gets the coveted win-win in constructing the status quo.
Joe Biden will be able to report to his constituents and congressmen that he has closed the conflict on Europe’s doorstep. France and Germany will finally be able to return to larger and more promising business projects with the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin will receive a de facto confederate division of Ukraine with unlimited control over one of the subjects of the confederation, which will provide him with a “blocking stake” in any issues related to Ukraine’s foreign policy, and then, later, in the field of culture and information policy .
This is the win-win solution that can be offered to Joe Biden at a potential meeting with Vladimir Putin in January 2022. In order for him to accept it, two large-scale key goals must be achieved by then.
First, to create the appearance of no alternative to such a way out. Namely, to make everyone believe that the only alternative would be a war with the potential use of nuclear weapons. To this end, the Kremlin has provided real preparations for war, not only by physically recovering troops (which, incidentally, is not always mandatory for the start of war), but also by carrying out large-scale preparations, which are likely to be “caught.” »American intelligence. It is likely that Mr ochuti the American rozvidspilnoty facts of these preparations may recall Joe Biden unpleasant moments February-March 2014, when the US administration simply sleptannexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbass. And in order for European leaders to see the seriousness of the situation in advance, key American tabloids, as a team, began to pour insight from anonymous sources in the intelligence agencies and the armed forces. For me personally, this is the only logical explanation for the reasons for the hysteria that has been carried by the Western media for three weeks now.
Second, to achieve the goals of the Putin-Biden summit in January, it is necessary to either encourage Zelensky to adopt an unpleasant scenario that will not only bury his political future, but also make him a pariah in his own country. Or, if Zelensky refuses to go for such an option, to convince Joe Biden that the level of Ukraine’s subjectivity has fallen to a critical level, and in this state it is simply easier to talk to anyone. If Zelensky is allegedly incapable of making and implementing political decisions, even with a stable rating that prevails over other politicians, then none of his successors will be able to change this, because a repetition of the situation with “mono-majority” and such concentration of power in one hand can no longer be expected. .
To ensure this second condition, a “coup d’etat” in Ukraine is needed, or at least its visibility. That is why some of Volodymyr Zelensky’s entourage may intimidate him with threats to the life and health of his family and himself. And this, as expected, leads to the fact that the president is frustrated with the journalist , who actually monitors his every move, which further deepens the crisis of his legitimacy.
Thus, all this diverse and colorful theater was created by the Kremlin director for only one spectator: Joe Biden. And, unfortunately, our fate with you is now in his hands.
He is shown that an alternative to an agreement with Putin would be war. And the war is not only with the Kremlin, because the main opponent for the White House is China. Meanwhile, Ukraine, for which he could fight to maintain its political rating in the United States, is showing more and more signs of a failed state.
It all seems to depend on whether we can convince Joe Biden of his ability to keep the state from total internal destabilization. In a war of all against all, it will be extremely difficult to do.
Photo Official White House Photo by David Lienemann