"When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the US and its allies chose a strategy that aimed to use Washington's awesome political, economic and military power to impose such high costs on Russia that the Kremlin would sue for peace on Ukraine's terms. This cost-imposition strategy makes sense in theory. The problem is that, in practice, it has slowed Russia's progress but not persuaded Putin to end his aggression."
"For advocates of the cost-imposition strategy, the answer is clear: more pressure. Specifically, they want an indefinite commitment to more sanctions, more weapons for Ukraine (such as Tomahawk missiles, which the US has so far refused to supply) and the seizure of frozen Russian assets in Europe. Yet more such measures are alone unlikely to provide the shock that would be needed to fundamentally change the trajectory of the war and force the Kremlin to capitulate to Ukraine's negotiating terms."
President Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's major oil and gas companies and lifted limits on Ukraine's use of some long-range missiles, enabling strikes into Russia. The moves followed calls with Putin and Zelenskyy and reflected frustration with both sides' intransigence. Since Russia's February 2022 invasion, the US and allies have pursued a cost-imposition strategy using economic and military pressure to force a settlement on Ukraine's terms. That approach has slowed Russia but not forced capitulation; Russia holds more Ukrainian territory than three years ago and the war nears its fifth year. Advocates call for more sanctions, advanced weapons and frozen-asset seizures, but Russia has adjusted and the EU has issued many sanction packages.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]