The Russia-Ukraine War in Germany VI. Excursus: The Ukraine War in America.

US-American „Putin-understanders”

US intellectuals – such as John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky – did have in the past good reasons for criticizing „Washington“ in many respects; but they are completely wrong in their assertion that the war of aggression on Ukraine is merely Russia’s reaction to the West, to NATO’s expansion. Probably, their mindset of permanent fundamental criticism of Washington does not allow even an exceptional recognition of their government’s policy on Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine – blinkers that obscure their view of Putin’s motives.

Political scientist John J. Mearsheimer caused outrage in the US liberal mainstream with his „morally perverse“ (Nick Burns¹) claim that the United States and its European allies were primarily to blame for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Noam Chomsky² criticises President Biden’s policy, which leaves Putin no way out; this leaves him with only one option, to destroy Ukraine.³ It does not occur to him that this – the destruction of Ukraine – could be precisely Putin’s goal, which he has cherished for many years. Chomsky suggests accepting a status for Ukraine like that of Mexico, Austria or Finland. Finland has meanwhile dropped out as an example of neutrality; after decades of neutrality, Finland is seeking protection in NATO in view of the aggressiveness of its large neighbour. For the „eastern region“ Chomsky suggests „some kind of Minsk II style arrangement“, with a „high level of autonomy within a federal settlement“ – as well as „recognising the reality that “Crimea is off the table“. Chomsky himself ignores reality: for seven years, the implementation of „Minsk II“ was the content of mantric chanting between all parties involved, Russia, Ukraine and the West. In fact, „Minsk diplomacy“ resulted in the military invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

Putin himself candidly acknowledged – disavowing his apologists in the West – that he was waging a neo-imperialist war of conquest in Ukraine: „It is our destiny“ to retrieve Russia’s previous conquests, i.e. not to defend Russia against NATO, as his US apologists claim.

“Neo-realist” lack of explanation

The US-American political scientist John J. Mearsheimer⁴ belongs to the „neo-realist“ school of international relations, which only accepts the strategic interests of the great powers in international relations, not moral and emotional considerations. He is the leading theorist of „offensive realism“, a variant of the „neo-realist school“, which emphasises the urge of great powers for hegemony as a means of maintaining their power.

Russian „leaders“ had repeatedly rejected NATO’s eastward expansion, Mearsheimer wrote in 2014, „making it clear that they would not stand idly by while their strategically important neighbour was transformed into a Western bastion.

In an interview with “The New Yorker” magazine on 1 March 2022, Mearsheimer expressed that „the transformation of Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy“ posed an „existential threat“ from the Russian perspective. In reality, this is not an „existential threat“ to Russia, but a possible threat to the autocratic regime of Russian President Putin, whose fall would be a blessing for Russia.

The „offensive realist“ Mearsheimer accepts a Russian zone of influence in Europe and declares: by not categorically ruling out Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO, as well as by its funding of pro-Western organisations inside Ukraine, the US has challenged Russia’s strategic interests in its own sphere of influence (italics the author); now the Ukrainians would bear the terrible consequences – an unspeakable statement!

But to understand Russia’s war in Ukraine, more than strategic calculations need to be considered, writes R. Nicholas Burns⁵ in the “New Statesman”⁶.  Assessing reality as it is is not per se immoral; but „offensive realists“ like Mearsheimer not only understand Putin, but justify his actions with what he passes off as Russian interest. This is immoral, Burns states.

Burns cites as a classic example the Greek historian Thucydides‘ description of the fate of the Melians, the inhabitants of the Greek island of Melos. The „Melian Dialogue“, a passage from Thucydides‘ „History of the Peloponnesian War“⁷ sums up the views of the neo-realist school of international relations: „The strong do what they will, while the weak endure what they must“, Burns writes.

The Melians wanted to remain neutral in the war between Athens and Sparta. When the hegemonic power of the time, Athens, demanded that they submit to the „Attic Sea League“ or else they would die, the Melians replied that they loved their freedom, which shook the Athenians, since this was a decision against their „interest“.

The story ended tragically. The Melians‘ „interest“ would have been to ensure their survival, but they were motivated in their steadfastness by their „morality“, their love of freedom and their fear of God. These cost all the men their lives; for all the women and children of the island of Melos, the struggle for freedom meant enslavement. Had the Melians understood their true „interest“, they would have surrendered and remained alive. Their belief in divine assistance was irrational, but nevertheless a reality. 

The decision of states is more complicated than the „neo-realists“ see it. They sometimes seem to decide against their „interest“ – interest equated with survival. Mearsheimer advises Ukrainians to make decisions according to a dispassionate assessment of their interests.

Burns counters: To fully understand the war in Ukraine, its causes and its effects, one would have to consider the emotions of the „participants“ –  Putin’s ambitions, the outrage of the West, the hope of the Ukrainians – not just strategic calculations.

Applied to the situation in Ukraine today, it could be said that the Ukrainians are staking their lives for their freedom in the fight against the militarily superior Russians – against their true „interest“ (in the sense of the „neo-realist school“) – (and trusting in God in their majority), instead of saving their lives by giving up their resistance to the superior Russia. The Ukrainians are the modern-day Melians.

President Biden’s initial hesitancy – placation of American concerns

The Biden administration, to reassure the American people, is letting Russia know what it is doing – and what it is not doing and will not do. Washington is making public the sums of financial resources and the quantities of weapons delivered and promised, as well as the sanctions imposed. But Washington is also sending another message to Moscow – a false one, writes American historian Timothy Snyder.⁸ The US will not send ground troops to Ukraine, will not send aircraft, will not establish a no-fly zone, will not deliver artillery with a range of more than 45 miles. According to Snyder, these announcements were a serious mistake. By doing so, Washington had ceded escalation dominance to Moscow. „A true superpower must dominate the escalation narrative in words and in deeds,“ says Timothy Snyder, who takes a contrary position to Chomsky and Mearsheimer. 

It was not only Berlin that bore misgivings; Washington was also hesitant and intimidated by Moscow’s threats of escalation. Washington’s hesitancy was damaging to its own American national security interests, Snyder believes. As early as 2018, it had been recommended that Ukrainian pilots be trained on NATO fighter jets. Nothing had been done. It takes time for pilots to become combat-ready. The refusal to transfer Polish fighter planes to Ukraine after the invasion could have had a huge moral support for the Ukrainians and a demoralising effect on the Russians.

Under the title „Biden’s Risk Aversion is Escalating Putin’s War“, Rebeccah L. Heinrichs, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, criticised Washington’s appeasement policy towards Putin.

As Russia massed its troops in preparation for the invasion of the Ukrainian border, Biden withheld sanctions to give „diplomacy a chance“. In response to Russian nuclear sabre-rattling, the Biden administration announced it was exercising restraint. A US administration official stated that the US would not share intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) with Ukraine „lest Russia think we are helping Ukraine too much“. Biden himself repeatedly tweeted that the US „would not wage war against Russia in Ukraine“. Putin could rest reassured.

White House pronouncements directed at domestic audiences claimed that President Biden’s actions would prevent escalation. Just the opposite, says Rebeccah Heinrichs: Biden’s unwillingness to support Ukraine to a „reasonable degree“ encouraged Putin to escalate the war.

The US should supply a steady stream of necessary weapons to kill as many Russian soldiers as possible – and diminish the reputation (of invincibility) of the Russian military, demands bellicose Rebeccah Heinrichs. The higher Russia’s losses of soldiers, the more likely it is that Putin and his generals will refrain from an even more aggressive approach, she believes. This, however, is rather unlikely: the Russian leadership has never – neither in the Tsarist nor in the Soviet period – been interested in the number of its own fallen soldiers; and even the „Russian Federal President Putin will not „refrain from an even more aggressive approach“ because of high human losses.

The US must replenish NATO’s weapons arsenals in Poland, Romania and the Baltic states, Heinrichs demands: „Russia must know that NATO will not lose defensive power by helping Ukraine to defend itself.“

In the meantime, however – January 2023 – President Biden has also heralded the „turn of the times“ (the German Chancellor’s “Zeitenwende”) at the White House in Washington. The US will deliver its „M1 Abrams“ main battle tank to Ukraine, and Biden visited Kyiv on 20 February 2023 – the anniversary of the Russian invasion – with a large package of military support measures in his luggage.⁹  

According to information from the American daily „Politico“, the White House is said to have advised the office of the President of Ukraine not to delay their counterattack.¹⁰

Divided US administration?

General Mark Milley – diplomatic instead of military offensive

In their manifesto, Alice Schwarzer and Sahra Wagenknecht invoke another military authority, none other than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley.

General Mark Milley, the top US military officer, advocates a diplomatic solution, a position shared neither by the US Secretary of State, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, nor by Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. „The United States is going to be with Ukraine for as long as it takes in this fight,“ Sullivan said during his visit to Ukraine in November 2022. „There will be no wavering, no flagging, no flinching in our support…“.¹¹

This has led to the unusual situation where military officials are more committed to diplomacy than diplomats and civilian officials. This may be because American security officials understand more of the political context in which Russian President Putin thinks and acts –  Putin’s worldview and how he sees himself and Russia’s role in the world – and Putin’s mentality, personal motivation and politics in Russia in general.

Indeed, there is a debate within the US administration about whether some kind of end to the fighting should not be sought through negotiations. At an event at the Economic Club of New York, just as the Ukrainian army was recapturing the oblast capital of Kherson, Milley praised the Ukrainian army for managing to achieve a stalemate in the fight against the Russian army; but he also said that a military victory was out of reach. „When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it. Seize the moment,“ Milley said.¹²

In internal consultations, Milley is reported to have said that he believed now (November 2022) was the optimal time to come to an end to the war before it drags on into spring 2023 and beyond. Such statements by authoritative US representatives are fuelling concerns in Wahington that the American government may appear divided in Putin’s eyes.

According to CNN, the top US diplomats believe that it is the Ukrainians, not the US, who must decide when to hold talks (with Russia). „That’s up to the Ukrainians. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,“ President Biden said at a press conference when asked about the possibility of talks.¹³

This is correct vis-à-vis Ukraine, but it also misses the reality: Putin is not only waging a war against Ukraine, but in Ukraine he is also waging a proxy war against the US, whose global hegemony he (together with Chinese President Xi Jinping) wants to curb.

The official position of the US administration is to send a strategic message of securing the international support for Ukraine that has so far allowed it to achieve success on the battlefield.

General Mark Milley does not rule out Ukrainian successes on the battlefield. True, on 20 January 2023, after the meeting of the „Contact Group on Ukraine’s support“ at Ramstein Airbase, he said: „For this year, it would be very, very difficult to militarily eject the Russian forces from every inch of Russian-occupied Ukraine.“ But, he said, „that doesn’t mean it can’t happen, doesn’t mean it won’t happen, but it’s going to be very, very difficult. What can happen is a continued defence, stabilizing the front. I think it’s possible to clearly do that. I think depending on the delivery and training of all of this equipment. I do think it’s very, very possible for the Ukrainians to run a significant tactical or even operational level offensive operation.“ From a military point of view, the conditions are very difficult; the front extends over a huge area – „all the way from Kharkiv down to Kherson“, Milley explained.

However, an assessment of the situation reduced to purely military aspects does not do it justice. The psychological condition of the actors on both sides must be included in the assessment: thus the motivation of the soldiers fighting for the existence of their state on the Ukrainian side, on the Russian side the –  despite all the hate propaganda –  perceived futility of Putin’s personal war against the „brother people“ of yesterday; as well as the limits of loyalty of the Russian „elite“ around President Putin in view of the severe impairment of their material interests by the Western sanctions. Furthermore, the effectiveness of state propaganda among the Russian population, which portrays the Russian aggression against Ukraine as a Western attack on Russia, and which, through a perverse memory of World War II, is able to convince the hawkish patriots to fight against the West. Last but not least, the moral and political support of Ukraine by the „collective West“ (Putin) and the reluctance of the major countries of the „global South“ in the  public assessment of the Russian invasion of a sovereign neighbouring country. All this may make the search for a battlefield decision advisable, even if such a decision does not seem one hundred per cent successful from a military point of view.

The RAND Corporation – American support for Putin

The RAND Corporation, a non-profit think tank¹⁴ in Washington D.C., suggests in its report of January 2023 that territorial concessions by Ukraine to Russia would be in the primary interest („paramount interest“) of the USA.¹⁵ The report is based on a „negative definition of American interests“ (Vladimir Socor)¹⁶, i.e. on consequences of American support for Ukraine that Washington actually wishes to avoid.

There are three „top priorities“ for the USA: avoiding an escalation to war between NATO and Russia; preventing a situation in which Russia could resort to the use of (tactical) nuclear weapons; and preventing a „long war“ between Russia and Ukraine.

The report deals only with what the US administration should not do. Reasons for supporting Ukraine – from defence commitment to European allies to deterring third potential aggressors, not to mention the flagrant breach of international law by Russia’s crime of aggression – are not even addressed in the report.

According to the RAND report, the interests of the USA do not coincide with the declared interest of Ukraine, namely the recovery of the parts of Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia. This statement suggests that Ukraine should not even attempt to recapture the Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories. A possible Ukrainian attempt to take back Crimea is categorically excluded, because a Ukrainian attack on Russian defence positions in Crimea would evoke the first use of nuclear weapons on the part of Russia. (Schwarzer and Wagenknecht do not cite the RAND report which supports their argument, probably because they did not know about it).

The authors of the report think they can make it bearable for Ukraine to give up the Russian-occupied territories with economic arguments: The Ukrainian territories lying behind the front line (both the territories occupied by Russia in 2014 and those occupied by Russia in 2022) are not particularly significant for Ukraine economically („do not deprive Kyiv of economically vital areas that would dramatically affect the country’s viability“). Thus, the RAND Corporation certifies that Ukraine has no compelling economic reasons for retaking the Russian-occupied territories.

This is a false claim: these territories produced most of Ukraine’s industrial exports and a significant portion of Ukraine’s agricultural exports (currently stolen by Russia and passed off as Russian agricultural exports); and these territories are home to important export ports for Ukraine.

Following the false economic argument, the authors hypocritically propose to Ukraine (and the Western world) a placebo to alleviate the territorial phantom pain: Ukraine’s territorial concessions to Russia would not have to be codified de jure. They could be framed as Ukraine’s de facto renunciation for ending the war – and without the West’s recognition of Russian annexations. As in the case of Crimea, the US and its allies would treat the annexation of further Ukrainian territories (the Donbas as well as the Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts – and anything else Russia might seize from Ukraine („regardless of where the de facto lines are drawn.“) as illegal – and leave it at that. According to this „logic“, a ceasefire would freeze the frontline through Ukraine – without undermining the norm of territorial integrity under international law, as long as the Russian annexations are not recognised de jure.

What an insidious attitude the RAND experts reveal in the “primary interest” od the United States of America! De facto acceptance under the cloak of de jure non-acceptance –  a new high point of hypocritical „realpolitik“.

It is an ahistorical assumption that Moscow would cooperate with the USA in good faith if the USA forced Ukraine to surrender by stopping its arms supplies.

Another argument of the RAND report is that the ability of the US to focus on competing with China would be impaired as long as the war in Ukraine continued. China is certainly the greater challenge for the United States, specifically for its global hegemony, than Russia. This makes it all the more important for the US to end the Russian war in Ukraine as quickly as possible by doing everything it can to ensure that Ukraine not only does not lose this war, but that it defeats Russia on its territory. To do this, the USA must supply Ukraine as quickly as possible with the weapons with which Ukraine can succeed in the reconquest of its occupied territory.

US General Ben Hodges – Ukrainian victory by long-range weapons

High-ranking American generals disagree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces of the United States, General Mark Milley – by name Generals Ben Hodges and Wesley Clark. The most prominent US military officer to publicly advocate military assistance even with long-range weapons is former commanding general, United States Army Europe, Lieutenant General (Retired) Frederick Benjamin „Ben“ Hodges. In an interview with Tatiana Popova of the English-language internet newspaper „Kyiv Post“, he said that with enough long-range precision weapons, Ukraine could win the war – despite Russia’s numerical superiority.¹⁷ The tanks now supplied by the West would enable Ukraine to break through Russian defences later in the year (2023).

US General Wesley Clark: „We can end the Ukraine war in six to eight months“.

The former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the American four-star General Wesley Clark, appealed (in an interview) to the West to support Ukraine more consistently. He sees serious failures on the part of the West. Asked by Katharina Kort¹⁸ if he saw a chance for an end to the war in the short term, Clark replied: „Not in the short term – at least not on the West’s terms – as there is the rules-based international order and the independence and integrity of Ukraine as a nation. And the reason is that the West has been too stingy. It has not given Ukraine what the country needed to defend itself and also to regain the territories that Russia illegally occupies.“¹⁹

US President Joe Biden in Kyiv –  American support „as long as it takes“

Four days before the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, on 20 February 2023, US President Joe Biden travelled (by train from Poland) to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. It was the first visit to Ukraine by an American president in 15 years, „the most important in the entire history of Ukrainian-American relations“, Ukrainian President Selenskyj called it.

With his risky trip, Biden demonstrated, on the one hand, the solidarity of the USA with Ukraine, which had been invaded by Russia; Biden did not stand „on the side“ of Ukraine in a figurative sense, but in reality next to Ukrainian President Selenskyj. The first – sensational – pictures of Biden’s visit to Kyiv appeared on social media when the two presidents entered the Michael Cathedral (Michajlivs’kyj Zolotoverchyj sobor) in the Michael Monastery (Svjato-Michajlivs’kyj Zolotoverchyj čolovičyj monactyr) side by side on the morning of 20 February (a Monday). It was a hopeful picture for Ukrainians.

„…it’s about freedom and democracy in Europe, freedom and democracy in the world,“ the American president proclaimed. For freedom, one must fight. And as long as the fight lasts, we will stand by you – „as long as it takes“ – promised Biden. The US president reiterated the „steadfast and unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity“, and pledged additional military aid of half a billion dollars to reaffirm it.

And the eighty-year-old Joe Biden demonstrated something else: „leadership“; he showed that he is „not a dithering old man“ (Katrin Brand ).

Biden’s stay in Kyiv lasted only five hours – with symbolic gestures such as visiting the wall with the photos of fallen soldiers at the Saint Michael Monastery and walking together with Selenskyj on the open street.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron and (former) British Prime Minister Boris Johnson were also in Kyiv in the first year of the war – important gestures of solidarity with Ukraine, which has been invaded and is fighting back. The visit of the American president, however, was an impressive and lasting reminder to the European public that the USA leads „the West“ and that Europe’s „strategic autonomy“ is a chimera.

US President Joe Biden in Kyiv – American support „as long as it takes“

Four days before the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, on 20 February 2023, US President Joe Biden travelled (by train from Poland) to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. It was the first visit to Ukraine by an American president in 15 years, „the most important in the entire history of Ukrainian-American relations“, Ukrainian President Selenskyj called it.

With his risky trip, Biden demonstrated, on the one hand, the solidarity of the USA with Ukraine, which had been invaded by Russia; Biden did not stand „on the side“ of Ukraine in a figurative sense, but in reality next to Ukrainian President Selenskyj. The first – sensational – pictures of Biden’s visit to Kyiv appeared on social media when the two presidents entered the Michael Cathedral (Michajlivs’kyj Zolotoverchyj sobor) in the Michael Monastery (Svjato-Michajlivs’kyj Zolotoverchyj čolovičyj monactyr) side by side on the morning of 20 February (a Monday). It was a hopeful picture for Ukrainians.

„…it’s about freedom and democracy in Europe, freedom and democracy in the world,“ the American president proclaimed. For freedom, one must fight. And as long as the fight lasts, we will stand by you – „as long as it takes“ – promised Biden. The US president reiterated the „steadfast and unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity“, and pledged additional military aid of half a billion dollars to reaffirm it.

And the eighty-year-old Joe Biden demonstrated something else: „leadership“; he showed that he is „not a dithering old man“ (Katrin Brand²⁰). German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron and (former) British Prime Minister Boris Johnson were also in Kyiv in the first year of the war – important gestures of solidarity with Ukraine, which has been invaded and is fighting back. The visit of the American president, however, was an impressive and lasting reminder to the European public that the USA leads „the West“ and that Europe’s „strategic autonomy“ is a chimera.

Biden’s stay in Kyiv lasted only five hours – with symbolic gestures such as visiting the wall with the photos of fallen soldiers at the Saint Michael Monastery and walking together with Selenskyj on the open street.

US President Joe Biden in Warsaw: „Our support (for Ukraine) will not waver“

After the surprise visit to Kyiv, the US President travelled to Warsaw. Against the backdrop of the Royal Palace, he delivered a keynote speech in the evening (of 21 February 2023) – a few hours after Putin had delivered his State of the Union²¹ address.

In his speech, Putin had blamed the West for the Ukraine war. The Kremlin chief was solely responsible for this war, Biden countered; he could end it „with just one word“.

„The West did not conspire to attack Russia,“ Biden addressed the people of Russia. […] The West has never intended to attack Russia, as Putin has claimed. „The United States and European nations do not want to control or (even) destroy Russia,“ the American president contradicted the Russian.

„Putin thought we were soft,“ Biden said. But the Russian strongman is now experiencing something he never thought possible, he said: „The democracies of this world have become stronger, not weaker.“²²  Russia will never win in Ukraine, he added. Our support for Ukraine „will not waver“, and „we will not tire“, Biden promised.²³ Biden was countering fears that „the West“ might weaken in its support for Ukraine as the war of attrition drags on.

In Warsaw, Biden invoked the unity of the West and NATO and solidarity with Ukraine. „We stand with NATO and with Article 5,“ Biden exclaimed, „an attack on one is an attack on all.“ Biden described the US commitment to NATO and Ukraine as a „battle for freedom against autocracy“ („battle for freedom against autocracy“).

A year earlier, at the same point, Biden had exclaimed at the end of a speech – deviating from the manuscript – apparently out of indignation over the war crimes of the Russian soldiery in Ukraine: „For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power!“²⁴ This misleading wording had been interpreted by the Russian side (and not only by the Russian side) as an intention to bring about a regime change in Moscow.

The following day (on 22.02.2023), Biden met with heads of state and government of the „Bucharest Nine“ („B 9“)²⁵; he assured them that the USA stood firmly by their side. John Kirby, spokesman for the US National Security Council, described the Eastern European countries as the „front line of our collective defence“.²⁶

„The West has shifted its centre of gravity eastwards. The geopolitical centre of Europe is no longer somewhere between Berlin, Paris and London. The impetus for Western support for Ukraine is being given in Tallinn, Riga and above all Warsaw,“ Jörg Lau states in the weekly newspaper “Die Zeit”.

During the Cold War, Germany, or West Germany, was a „frontline state“; the German pacifists can now feel safe behind the bar of „the Bucharest Nine“ and demonstrate for „peace“ – and the cessation of arms deliveries to Ukraine. Others fight and die for them.

The „White House“: Three reasons for America’s help in the Ukrainian „war of independence“.

United States National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby²⁷ listed the reasons why it was important for the United States to continue helping Ukraine.²⁸ (Kirby was responding to a journalist’s request to explain to American voters who did not fully understand why it was important for the United States to „be so actively involved in the war in Ukraine“).

Kirby gave three reasons why Ukraine needed to be helped to win on the battlefield.

The first reason Kirby gave was the nature of the war: „It is a war for independence, for the legitimate right to exist as a country. If any nation in the world understands that, it’s the United States of America, because we had to fight for our independence at least twice,“ Kirby said. And for that we needed foreign help,“ Kirby justified American aid to Ukraine. 

The second reason Kirby cited was the global economic impact of the war in Ukraine – food insecurity in the global South. „For those who may think that the war in Ukraine is so far away that it doesn’t affect them, I would ask them to remember the summer and the high gas prices…“.

Finally, Kirby referred to the consequences if the Russian president got what he wanted by force of arms. What would Putin’s next target be if Ukraine fell into his hands – „and how much more money and blood, especially American blood,“ would it cost?“

The biggest threat to Ukraine in the near future is not from Russia (i.e., Russian military operations), but from the US – in case a candidate from Donald Trump’s camp (or even he himself) wins the next presidential election in 2024.

1. Robert Nicholas Burns, American diplomat, ex-United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
2. Avram Noam Chomsky, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology / MIT; Chomsky is one of the most prominent critics of “Washington”.
3. Noam Chomsky: A left Response to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, Interview by Bill Fletcher, Jr., April 8, 2022; https://therealnews.com/noam-chomsky-a-left-response-to-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine.
4. Professor at University of Chicago.
5. R. Nicholas Burns s an American diplomat. From 2005 to 2008 he was United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs at the United States Department of State.
6. Nick Burns: What realists get wrong about Putin, in: New Statesman, UK Edition, 10 March 2022. https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/03/what-realists-get-wrong-about-putin.
7. Book 5, Chapter 84-116.
8. Timothy Snyder is professor at Yale University,  Permanent Fellow at the Vienna Institute for Human Sciences. His main research interests are Eastern European history and the Holocaust.
9. Ukrainskaja pravda (Russ. edition), 20 February 2023; https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2023/02/20/7390165/.
10. Ukrainskaja pravda (Russ. edition), 20 February 2023; https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2023/02/20/7390060/.
11. Reuters: White House’s Sullivan visits Kyiv, says ‚unwavering‘ support to continue, 04.11.2022; https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/white-houses-sullivan-visits-kyiv-says-unwavering-support-continue-2022-11-04/. https://www.weareukraine.info/there-will-be-no-wavering-no-flagging-no-flinching-in-our-support-of-ukraine/.
12. Kylie Atwood, Oren Liebermann, CNN, Washington, November 11, 2022: Biden admin divided over path ahead for Ukraine as top US general Milley pushes for diplomacy; https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/11/politics/ukraine-mark-milley-negotiations-biden-administration-debate/index.html.
13. UKRAINIAN WORLD CONGRESS: BIDEN: “NOTHING ABOUT UKRAINE WITHOUT UKRAINE, 11. November 2022; https://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/biden-nothing-about-ukraine-without-ukraine/.
14. The RAND Corporation (“Research ANd Development”) was founded in 1948 by the Douglas Aircraft Company.
15. In this chapter, the author relies on statements by Vladimir Socor: The Case for US Assent to Ukraine’s Further Dismemberment, in: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume: 20 Issue: 25, 10 February 2023. Teil I: https://jamestown.org/program/the-case-of-us-assent-to-ukraines-further-dismemberment-part-one/. Teil II: https://jamestown.org/program/the-case-of-us-assent-to-ukraines-further-dismemberment-part-two/.
16. Vladimir Socor is a Romanian-American political analyst on Eastern European affairs (based in Munich) who writes for the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor.
17. https://www.kyivpost.com/videos/13152. Ben Hodges is Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis.
18. Katharina Kort is US Bureau Chief in New York for the business newspaper Handelsblatt.
19. Katharina Kort: Interview with Four-Star General Wesley Clark: „Wir können den Ukraine-Krieg in sechs bis acht Monaten beenden“ („We can end the Ukraine war in six to eight months“), in: Tagesspiegel Plus, 20 February 2023. Wesley „Wes“ Kanne Clark (retired) was Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
20. Katrin Brand (from Warsaw), Kommentar: US-Präsident in Kiew. Was Biden beweisen wollte (comment: US President in Kyiv. What Biden wanted to prove), ARD-Studio Washington, 21 February 2023.
21. Vladimir Putin: Rede an die Nation vom 21. Februar 2023 (Speech to the Nation of 21 February 2022), in: OSTEUROPA; https://zeitschrift-osteuropa.de/blog/putin-rede-21.2.2022/.
22. Juliane Schäuble: Bidens kraftvolle Ansprache in Warschau: „Die Demokratien dieser Welt sind stärker geworden, nicht schwächer“ (Biden’s powerful Warsaw address: ‚The world’s democracies have grown stronger, not weaker‘), in: Tagesspiegel, 21.02.2023; https://www.tagesspiegel.de/internationales/biden-in-warschau-demonstration-der-entschlossenheit-9387671.html.
23. The New York Times: “Our Support Will Not Waver,’ Biden Says After Putin Signals Sharper Break”, 21.02.2023; https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/21/world/russia-biden-putin-ukraine-war.
24. Ibid.
25. Jörg Lau: Joe Biden in Warschau: Der richtige Ort für seine Botschaft (Biden in Warsaw: the right place for his message), in: ZEIT ONLINE, 21 February 2023; https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-02/joe-biden-warschau-rede-ukraine. „Bucharest Nine“ („B 9”): Group of Eastern and Central European NATO countries formed in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria.
26. Ibid.
27. John Kirby, Rear Admiral (ret.), United States Navy. As of 2022, Kirby has served as communications director for the United States National Security Council.
28. Olha Hlušenko: Das Weiße Haus nennt die Gründe für die Hilfe der USA an die Ukraine (White House gives reasons for US aid to Ukraine), in: Ukrainskaja pravda (Russ. edition), 08 March 2023; https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2023/03/8/7392427/.