*SS*: Dr. Edward Ifft offers an overview of how and why the war in Ukraine is likely on track to end with some type of negotiation between the belligerent parties. Ambassador James E. Goodby provides an introduction, in which he writes:
“Ed Ifft in the essay that follows posits that wars that do not end in an unconditional surrender generally end with a negotiated settlement—whether permanent or with elements that are interim in nature. Dr. Ifft argues that it is time to begin to think about the complicated and difficult issues that would be involved in any settlement of the war in Ukraine. He identifies these issues, along with some of the painful compromises that might be required to resolve them.
Dr. Ifft’s essay flows from a perspective that Ukraine may have reached or will soon reach a high-water mark on the battlefield, and it is therefore in its own best interests, however dissatisfying or unfair, to end that fighting through a settlement. And he argues that too much attention has been paid to the prospects for operational advances or to the delivery of this or that specific weapons system.”
In his main essay, Dr. Ifft notes that, “Looming over all these considerations is the possibility that former president Donald Trump might win the US election in November 2024, which would seem to favor Russia. How this affects each side’s calculus now is difficult to say. Understanding each side’s decision-making process from the outside is difficult, especially given the contradictions inherent in this process.”
Do you agree that current uncertainty around the future of US politics makes planning for a possible negotiated end to the Ukraine conflict a more difficult endeavor?
How can European nations and Ukraine itself best position for any outcome in the upcoming US general elections? What policy shifts would this involve, and do you think those may already be underway?
1 comment
*SS*: Dr. Edward Ifft offers an overview of how and why the war in Ukraine is likely on track to end with some type of negotiation between the belligerent parties. Ambassador James E. Goodby provides an introduction, in which he writes:
“Ed Ifft in the essay that follows posits that wars that do not end in an unconditional surrender generally end with a negotiated settlement—whether permanent or with elements that are interim in nature. Dr. Ifft argues that it is time to begin to think about the complicated and difficult issues that would be involved in any settlement of the war in Ukraine. He identifies these issues, along with some of the painful compromises that might be required to resolve them.
Dr. Ifft’s essay flows from a perspective that Ukraine may have reached or will soon reach a high-water mark on the battlefield, and it is therefore in its own best interests, however dissatisfying or unfair, to end that fighting through a settlement. And he argues that too much attention has been paid to the prospects for operational advances or to the delivery of this or that specific weapons system.”
In his main essay, Dr. Ifft notes that, “Looming over all these considerations is the possibility that former president Donald Trump might win the US election in November 2024, which would seem to favor Russia. How this affects each side’s calculus now is difficult to say. Understanding each side’s decision-making process from the outside is difficult, especially given the contradictions inherent in this process.”
Do you agree that current uncertainty around the future of US politics makes planning for a possible negotiated end to the Ukraine conflict a more difficult endeavor?
How can European nations and Ukraine itself best position for any outcome in the upcoming US general elections? What policy shifts would this involve, and do you think those may already be underway?