ペンタゴンお気に入りのシンクタンクがウクライナ紛争の早期終結を求める中、ワシントンのムードは変わりつつあるのだろうか。

As the Pentagon's favorite think tank calls for a swift end to the Ukraine conflict, is the mood shifting in Washington?
The RAND Corporation believes the fighting must end sooner rather than later

The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report stating that prolonging the proxy war is actively harming the US and its allies and warning Washington that it should avoid “a protracted conflict” in Ukraine.
What are the US' interests in Ukraine
‘If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning’: How a landmark speech paved the way for the US to unleash death and destruction
Read more
‘If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning’: How a landmark speech paved the way for the US to unleash death and destruction

The report has an unequivocal title, “Avoiding a long war: US policy and the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict,” which provides a strong indication as to its contents.

It starts by stating that the fighting represents “the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences” for Washington, which includes US “interests” being actively harmed. The report makes it very clear that while Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, and their cities have been “flattened” and “economy decimated,” these “interests” are “not synonymous” with Kiev’s.

The US ending its financial, humanitarian and particularly military support promptly would cause Ukraine to completely collapse, and RAND cites several reasons why doing so would be sensible, not least because a Ukrainian victory is regarded as both “improbable” and “unlikely,” due to Russian “resolve,” and its military mobilization having “rectified the manpower deficit that enabled Ukraine’s success in the Kharkiv counteroffensive.”

From the perspective of US “interests,” RAND warns that while the Kremlin has not threatened to use nuclear weapons, there are “several issues that make Russian use of nuclear weapons both a plausible contingency Washington needs to account for and a hugely important factor in determining the future trajectory of the conflict.”

And what are the risks for the US

The think tank believes the Biden administration “has ample reason to make the prevention of Russian use of nuclear weapons a paramount priority." In particular, it should seek to avoid a “direct nuclear exchange” with Moscow, a “direct conflict with Russia”, or wider “NATO-Russia war.”

On the latter point, RAND worries that US general Mark Milley’s demand that the conflict stay “inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine” is on the verge of being disrespected, as “the extent of NATO allies’ indirect involvement in the war is breathtaking in scope,” including “tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and other aid” and “tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support,” along with “billions of dollars monthly in direct budgetary support to Kiev.”
NATO's best tanks are going to Ukraine, what will it mean on the battlefield?
Read more
NATO's best tanks are going to Ukraine, what will it mean on the battlefield?

Such largesse could, RAND forecasts, prompt Moscow to “punish NATO members…with the objective of ending allied support for Ukraine; strike NATO preemptively if Russia perceives that NATO intervention in Ukraine is imminent; interdict the transfer of arms to Ukraine; retaliate against NATO for perceived support for internal unrest in Russia,” if the Kremlin concludes the country’s national security is “severely imperiled.”

These outcomes are “by no means inevitable,” but still represent an “elevated” risk, particularly in light of incidents such as a Ukrainian air defense missile striking Polish territory in November 2022 – a situation exacerbated by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky falsely claiming it was a deliberate Russian strike. While this event “did not spiral out of control, it did demonstrate that fighting can unintentionally spill over to the territory of neighboring US allies.”

Another incident like that could mean “the US military would immediately be involved in a hot war with a country that has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.” This, as well as a conventional conflict between NATO and Russia, is a prospect Washington should avoid at all costs, RAND argues.

A clear implication is the US could lose such a conflict, one key reason being, as pointed out by RAND, “the intensity of the military assistance” being given to Ukraine by its Western backers is already approaching an “unsustainable” level, with US and European weapons stocks “running low.” This consequently means a longer war equals more Ukrainian territory reunified with Russia.
RT
A Russian servicemen speaks over walkie-talkie near a BM-21 Grad multiple launch rocket system in the course of Russia's military operation in Ukraine, at the unknown location. Sputnik / Konstantin Mihalchevskiy
Is there a solution?

On the subject of territorial losses, RAND is unmoved by arguments Ukraine should attempt to recapture all that it has lost since 2014, as “greater territorial control is not directly correlated with greater economic prosperity” or “greater security.” Land having been retaken by Kiev since September means “Russia has imposed far greater economic costs on the country as a whole.”

RAND also considers the worth of arguments that “greater Ukrainian territorial control” should be assured “to reinforce international norms, and to foster Ukraine’s future economic growth” to be “debatable,” as even in the “unlikely” event Kiev pushes “beyond the pre-February 2022 line of control and manages to retake areas that Russia has occupied since 2014,” the risks of escalation from Moscow, including “nuclear use or an attack on NATO” will “spike.”

The Kremlin would likely treat the potential loss of Crimea as a much more significant threat both to national security and regime stability,” the report warns.

All these factors make “avoiding a long war…the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks,” so RAND recommends the US “take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely,” including “issuing assurances regarding the country’s neutrality,” something that Moscow had requested before the conflict began, to deaf ears, as well as “sanctions relief for Russia.”
The Kiev Purge: What has spurred a wave of resignations among senior Ukrainian officials?
Read more
The Kiev Purge: What has spurred a wave of resignations among senior Ukrainian officials?

However, the report warns against a “dramatic, overnight shift in US policy,” as this would be “politically impossible – both domestically and with allies,” instead recommending the development of “instruments” to bring the war to a “negotiated end,” and “socializing them with Ukraine and with US allies” in advance to lessen the blow. This process should be started quickly though, as “the alternative is a long war that poses major challenges for the US, Ukraine, and the rest of the world.”

***

What this proposal ignores is that Western leaders have consistently proven they cannot be trusted to respect or adhere to treaties they have signed and brokered with Russia, such as the Minsk Accords, which former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has admitted were never intended to be implemented, but rather to buy time for Kiev.

It may be the case then that Moscow won’t be interested in RAND’s solution at all, and choose instead to finish the war on its own terms. ペンタゴンお気に入りのシンクタンクがウクライナ紛争の早期終結を求める中、ワシントンのムードは変わりつつあるのだろうか。
ランド研究所は、戦闘は遅かれ早かれ終了する必要があると考えている。

ペンタゴンから直接資金提供を受けている、非常に影響力のあるエリート国家安全保障シンクタンクであるランド研究所は、代理戦争の長期化は米国とその同盟国に積極的に損害を与えると述べ、ウクライナでの「紛争の長期化」を避けるべきとワシントンに警告する画期的な報告書を発表している。
ウクライナにおける米国の利益とは
これが悪でないなら、悪に意味はない」：画期的な演説が、米国が死と破壊を解き放つための道を切り開いたか
続きを読む
これが悪でないなら、悪に意味はない」：画期的な演説が、米国が死と破壊を解き放つための道を開いたか

この報告書には、「長い戦争の回避」という明確なタイトルが付けられている。長い戦争の回避：米国の政策とロシア・ウクライナ紛争の軌跡」という明快なタイトルが、その内容を端的に示している。

この紛争は「ここ数十年で最も重要な国家間紛争であり、その進展はワシントンにとって大きな影響を及ぼす」とし、その中には米国の「利益」が積極的に損なわれることも含まれている、と述べることから始まる。この報告書は、ウクライナ人が戦闘を行い、彼らの都市が「平坦化」され、「経済が衰退」しているが、これらの「利益」はキエフのものと「同義ではない」ことを明確にしている。

米国が財政的、人道的、特に軍事的支援を速やかに終了すれば、ウクライナは完全に崩壊する。ランド研究所は、そうすることが賢明である理由をいくつか挙げているが、特にロシアの「決意」によって、ウクライナの勝利は「ありえない」「ありえない」とみなされており、ロシアの軍事動員は「ハリコフ反攻でウクライナの成功を可能にしたマンパワー不足を是正」したとされている。

米国の「利益」の観点から、ランド研究所は、クレムリンが核兵器を使用すると脅してはいないものの、「ロシアの核兵器使用は、ワシントンが考慮すべきもっともらしい不測の事態であると同時に、紛争の将来の軌道を決定する極めて重要な要因となるいくつかの問題がある」と警告している。

米国にとってのリスクは何か

シンクタンクは、バイデン政権が「ロシアの核兵器使用の防止を最優先させる十分な理由がある」と考えている。特に、モスクワとの「直接的な核交換」、「ロシアとの直接的な衝突」、あるいは「NATOとロシアの戦争」の拡大を回避することを目指すべきだとしている。

後者についてランドは、マーク・ミリー米大将の「紛争はウクライナの地理的境界の中で」という要求が軽んじられる寸前だと懸念している。「数百億ドル相当の武器やその他の援助」「戦術的情報、監視、偵察支援」、さらに「キエフへの毎月数億ドルの直接予算支援」など、NATO同盟国の戦争への間接関与は息を飲むほど広範囲であるからである。


このような大盤振る舞いは、クレムリンが自国の安全保障を「著しく脅かす」と判断した場合、モスクワに「ウクライナに対する同盟国の支援を終了させる目的でNATO加盟国を処罰し、NATOのウクライナ介入が差し迫っているとロシアが認識すればNATOを先制攻撃し、ウクライナへの武器輸送を妨害し、ロシア国内の不安に対する支援と認識してNATOに対して報復をする」ように促すとランドは予測する。

これらの結果は「決して避けられないものではない」が、特に2022年11月にウクライナの防空ミサイルがポーランド領を攻撃したような事件-ウラジーミル・ゼレンスキー大統領がロシアの故意の攻撃だと誤認したことによって状況が悪化した-を考慮すれば、依然として「高まった」リスクを示している。この出来事は、"制御不能に陥ることはなかったが、戦闘が意図せずして近隣の米国同盟国の領土に波及する可能性があることを示した "のである。

このような事件がまた起これば、"米軍は世界最大の核兵器を持つ国との熱い戦争に直ちに巻き込まれることになる"。これは、NATOとロシアの通常型紛争と同様に、ワシントンが何としても避けるべき事態であるとランド研究所は主張している。

その主な理由は、ランド研究所が指摘するように、欧米の支援者によるウクライナへの「軍事支援の強度」がすでに「持続不可能」なレベルに近づいており、米国とヨーロッパの兵器在庫が「不足している」ためである。その結果、戦争が長引き、ウクライナの領土がより多くロシアに再統一されることを意味する。

www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。