| Samuel Charap is asking Ukraine and its allies to consider how much worse the war could get.  Illustration by Ricardo Tomás Samuel Charap, an analyst at the RAND Corporation, has been labelled by critics as a Kremlin mouthpiece, a Russian “shill,” and a traitor. These accusations are a response to his insistent calls for diplomacy in regards to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, both during the lead-up to the war and as the fighting has unfolded. In a probing new essay, Keith Gessen engages seriously with Charap’s ideas—noting where Charap’s analysis in the past has been prescient (the likelihood and timing of Russia’s invasion) and where it has missed the mark (underestimating the utility of some Western military assistance). Many American analysts and politicians see the suggestion of peace talks or negotiations with Russia as a form of appeasement, and argue that any move to freeze the fighting would render international borders meaningless and only embolden Vladimir Putin. Yet Charap views it differently, arguing that a total Russian defeat and withdrawal appears unlikely. “It’s not necessarily that I think Ukraine needs to make concessions,” he explains. “It’s that I don’t see the alternative to that eventually happening.” In the meantime, Charap warns that the war could still get much worse and that preparations for serious diplomatic engagement should be under way. “The only way you really can know is if we actually try and it doesn’t work,” he says. “You haven’t lost anything if you do that.” Support The New Yorker’s award-winning journalism. Subscribe today » | 
No comments:
Post a Comment