Richard Haass

If by win this war, you mean recover all of its territory going back to 1991, you're right. And that was actually a good strategic insight of this administration that militarily recovering all Ukraine had lost in 2014 and 2022 was not realistic. And the Biden administration refused to do that. But the other way to define success is you have a ceasefire.

Ukraine keeps what it has now, which is 80% of its territory. The war stops. And then you have the ability over years or decades to negotiate. And maybe you come up with a new relationship between Ukraine and, say, a post-Vladimir Putin Russia. So again, I think there's all sorts of possibilities. But success should not be defined either as Ukraine recovering all of its territory militarily.

Ukraine keeps what it has now, which is 80% of its territory. The war stops. And then you have the ability over years or decades to negotiate. And maybe you come up with a new relationship between Ukraine and, say, a post-Vladimir Putin Russia. So again, I think there's all sorts of possibilities. But success should not be defined either as Ukraine recovering all of its territory militarily.

Ukraine keeps what it has now, which is 80% of its territory. The war stops. And then you have the ability over years or decades to negotiate. And maybe you come up with a new relationship between Ukraine and, say, a post-Vladimir Putin Russia. So again, I think there's all sorts of possibilities. But success should not be defined either as Ukraine recovering all of its territory militarily.

That's a non-starter. Or giving Vladimir Putin everything he wants.

That's a non-starter. Or giving Vladimir Putin everything he wants.

That's a non-starter. Or giving Vladimir Putin everything he wants.

To put it bluntly, the post-war order is on life support. It's a tragedy. I've never seen this before in history. I'm used to empires or orders crumbling. I'm used to them being overwhelmed. I've never seen the side, the country that created it and maintained it dismantling it. And that is exactly what we are doing.

To put it bluntly, the post-war order is on life support. It's a tragedy. I've never seen this before in history. I'm used to empires or orders crumbling. I'm used to them being overwhelmed. I've never seen the side, the country that created it and maintained it dismantling it. And that is exactly what we are doing.

To put it bluntly, the post-war order is on life support. It's a tragedy. I've never seen this before in history. I'm used to empires or orders crumbling. I'm used to them being overwhelmed. I've never seen the side, the country that created it and maintained it dismantling it. And that is exactly what we are doing.

And what's so tragic about it is the great strategic advantage of American foreign policy We wake up every morning and we have this pool of partners, dozens in Europe and in Asia, that are willing to work with us militarily to deter conflict, to fight them if need be, willing to trade with us, invest with us, and so forth.

And what's so tragic about it is the great strategic advantage of American foreign policy We wake up every morning and we have this pool of partners, dozens in Europe and in Asia, that are willing to work with us militarily to deter conflict, to fight them if need be, willing to trade with us, invest with us, and so forth.

And what's so tragic about it is the great strategic advantage of American foreign policy We wake up every morning and we have this pool of partners, dozens in Europe and in Asia, that are willing to work with us militarily to deter conflict, to fight them if need be, willing to trade with us, invest with us, and so forth.

And we are undermining that and for nothing that's necessarily good or even in any way comparable in return.

And we are undermining that and for nothing that's necessarily good or even in any way comparable in return.

And we are undermining that and for nothing that's necessarily good or even in any way comparable in return.

Could be a world of much more disorder where adversaries see opportunities. Could be a world of spheres of influence where China says, oh, we're going to do with Taiwan and others what we want. Where Russia controls big parts of Europe. Where the United States, consistent with some of what the president has said, seems to play a more aggressive role in the Western economy. hemisphere.

Could be a world of much more disorder where adversaries see opportunities. Could be a world of spheres of influence where China says, oh, we're going to do with Taiwan and others what we want. Where Russia controls big parts of Europe. Where the United States, consistent with some of what the president has said, seems to play a more aggressive role in the Western economy. hemisphere.

Could be a world of much more disorder where adversaries see opportunities. Could be a world of spheres of influence where China says, oh, we're going to do with Taiwan and others what we want. Where Russia controls big parts of Europe. Where the United States, consistent with some of what the president has said, seems to play a more aggressive role in the Western economy. hemisphere.

So that's possible too. The problem is any one of those worlds has far more conflict to it, far less prosperity, and far less freedom. So I just don't understand why we would trade in an approach to the world that has worked for 80 years for something that's far more risky and potentially far more costly.