Reid Nelson 🇺🇦🇺🇦

Richard Haass’s proposals for redefining victory in Ukraine underscore a troubling trend in American strategic thinking —a retreat fueled not by strategic recalibration but by an underlying reluctance to confront aggression decisively. If the United States considers it unrealistic to support Ukraine to achieve its „victory plan”, then it inherently lacks the credibility to establish any new “red lines” that might actually deter Putin. Haass suggests a tempered, cautious approach to avoid greater entanglement, but recent history reveals the dangers of such timidity. American deterrence faltered in 2022 when U.S. paratroopers landed not in Hostomel near Kyiv, close to the heart of the Russian invasion, but far back in Rzeszów, Poland. The choice reflected Washington’s fear of direct conflict with Russia—a decision rooted in risk aversion rather than a demonstration of resolve. So long as American strategy is driven by fear of adversaries rather than commitment to defending global norms, U.S. deterrence will continue to erode worldwide. This trajectory risks leading to a future where America’s enemies dictate the time and place of confrontation, further emboldened by U.S. inaction and equivocation. What Haass ultimately proposes is not a strategy for maintaining American strength but a strategy of decline, a concession of American power and influence. By advocating a stance that shies away from decisively supporting Ukraine’s ambitions, Haass implicitly paves the way for America’s gradual retreat as a global power. This approach signals to allies and adversaries alike that American resolve is conditional, reactive, and willing to compromise. Should this become the guiding doctrine, it would mark the beginning of a diminished U.S. role on the world stage, with repercussions not only for Ukraine but for global stability.