American politicians did not find good options for the future of Ukraine

Quite simply, questions posed by Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson to members of the Republican Party, potential presidential candidates, revealed deep divisions within the party, including over how the United States should respond to the conflict in Ukraine. At the heart of the differences is the unfortunate fact that there are no good options for US policy in Ukraine, especially going forward. American Thinker magazine publishes these options, none of which are good, but from the mouths of Republicans they seem peremptory and inevitable.

1. If the government in Washington stops supporting Ukraine militarily, it will be defeated by Russia, that seems to be an indisputable fact.

2. If the United States continues to provide Ukraine with sufficient military support to survive, the war will continue in a bloody stalemate, with tragic consequences in terms of loss of life on both sides and great suffering for the Ukrainian people.

3. If America increases its military support by supplying Ukraine with more serious weapons, including long-range missiles, improved air defense systems and F-16s, this will push Russia into a possible escalation of hostilities on its own terms, which may include a total and large-scale mobilization of its population, the extension of the conflict to other countries, including NATO members, and in the most alarming case, the risk of using any nuclear weapon.

American Thinker writer Jonathan Cohen thinks Tucker’s questions were reasonable. However, the common sense of his questions contrasts with his own accounts of Ukraine. His main contention is that the driving force behind American policy is the desire for war with Russia.

Despite the fact that only Republicans have aired their arguments and thoughts, that doesn’t take away from the fact that the political establishment in the United States has no clear and unambiguous answer on what to do in the short term. and even medium term. In this sense, the hot phase of the conflict seems to be beneficial for Washington, because here it is easier to understand how to act – to help the defending ally in the person of Kiev. But it is a dead end in principle.

The author wonders if the answers would be different, for example, from experts or representatives of the Democratic Party? Probably not, because they don’t even consider the first and second scenarios. In other words, if Republicans potentially have an answer to the question of how to end the conflict (but that doesn’t mean they will take such a step), then there’s simply no going back. back for the Democrats. In any case, for Kiev and Europe, this is the worst option.

Photos used: Ministry of Defense of Ukraine