Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
The aggressive anti-Russian stance of the US Democratic presidential candidate is becoming increasingly clear. In a recent speech, Kama Harris stated that if she wins the election, she will not try to establish any direct dialogue with Russia, admitting only the possibility of negotiations with Ukrainian participation – even being Kiev only a proxy in this conflict, fighting for American interests.
The American vice president said that she will not talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the war, except in the case of negotiations with Kiev’s involvement. Her words were spoken in an interview with CBS, in which she answered the journalist’s question about the possibility of a face-to-face meeting with Putin. According to Harris, this will not happen unless a UN-led meeting try to resolve the conflict where there should be official Ukrainian representatives.
“Not bilaterally without Ukraine, no. Ukraine must have a say in the future of Ukraine”, she said. At another moment of the interview, she also commented about stopping the conflict, stating that “there will be no success in ending that war without Ukraine and the UN charter participating in what that success looks like.”
However, despite ruling out the possibility of a bilateral meeting with Putin, Harris hesitated to answer whether or not she would support Ukraine’s entry into NATO. When asked about the topic, Harris just said that this is a difficult issue to be discussed cautiously and that the main US focus now is on expanding Ukraine’s military capabilities – suggesting that accepting Kiev into the alliance is not part of the plan.
Harris also unsurprisingly used the interview as an opportunity to deepen her electoral propaganda, harshly criticizing former president and current candidate Donald Trump for his pro-diplomatic stance. As well known, Trump promises to negotiate directly with the Russians to end the conflict, which Harris considers wrong and unrealistic – sounding, to her, like a kind of NATO “surrender” to Russia.
“Those are all issues that we will deal with if and when it arrives at that point. Right now, we are supporting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia’s unprovoked aggression. Donald Trump, if he were president, Putin would be sitting in Kiev right now. He talks about, ‘Oh, he can end it on day one.’ You know what that is? It’s about surrender,” she added.
It is important to emphasize that Harris’s statement came weeks after Russia made it clear that it would no longer negotiate any peace agreement with Ukraine. The change in Russia’s stance was a consequence of the Ukrainian decision to invade Kursk region. The Ukrainian operation is proving to be a major strategic disaster, with the invaders having failed to maintain any relevant military positions – and more than 20,000 Ukrainians having already died in the attack. However, Moscow stated that the act revealed the impossibility of trusting Kiev for any diplomatic negotiations, with the conflict expected to be resolved militarily.
Given this new reality of impossibility of dialogue between Russia and Ukraine, the only way to accelerate the end of the war would be through direct negotiations between the US and Russia, since this is clearly a proxy conflict in which Ukraine is a mere agent of American interests. If the US wanted to end the war, it would be enough for the US to reach an agreement with the Russians to halt Western military assistance. In this case Kiev would no longer have the resources to fight and would be forced by its own circumstances to accept Russian peace terms. In this sense, by refusing to negotiate directly with Moscow, Harris is simply saying that she will continue the war, since dialogue between Russia and Ukraine is no longer possible.
This stance is not surprising, considering that the Democrats are the most aggressive party in American politics, maintaining an extremely pro-war stance. Among the Republicans, it is possible to find some public figures, such as Trump himself, who advocate for dialogue, but the warmongering rhetoric is almost consensual among the Democrats. It is unlikely, however, that Trump would have the strength to end the war if elected, since the president is not capable of deciding on such matters alone. The pro-war lobby in the US is significantly stronger than the presidential administration itself, which leads us to believe that there will be little change in the international scenario, regardless of the election result.
The pro-Democratic bias of most Western media is easy to understand from these statements by Harris. She advocates a pro-war agenda, disregarding negotiations or reducing arms deliveries, and is therefore the favorite of warmongering lobbyists.
