The Washington Post editors have long argued for prolonging the war in Ukraine.
In November 2022, when Ukraine was in a good position to negotiate an end to the war, they argued against it:
Mr. Zelensky and his supporters in the West undoubtedly understand that peace talks might eventually be necessary, his commitment to victory notwithstanding. And yet to declare that, or even imply it, before the time is right — before Ukraine’s armed forces have exhausted every opportunity to regain occupied territory — would convey slackening commitment. And that, in turn, can only convince Mr. Putin that time is on his side and that he should prolong the fighting.
Since then Ukraine’s armed forces have exhausted every opportunity to regain occupied territory – and failed. Russia was then and is now convinced that time is on its side.
Now, finally, the editors acknowledge that their war against Russia in Ukraine is lost. But they still insist that this can not be allowed to be formalized in a ceasefire or peace treaty.
While they are stomping their feet they fail to present an alternative:
Ukraine risks losing the war. A Trump-imposed bad deal would be worse. (archived)
A settlement that dismembers Ukraine and rewards Putin will undermine U.S. credibility.
As Russia is the dominating power in the war in Ukraine there will only be one deal that can be had. It will be along the parameters the Russia's President Putin has laid out. That deal will certainly be less than optimal for the U.S. side but how would it be 'worse' for Ukraine than losing the war?
As for 'credibility':
A pullback now would convey that the United States and its allies lack staying power and that their promises come time-stamped as valid only until the next election date. How might China take such a message as its autocratic president, Xi Jinping, contemplates whether to make a military move to try to seize the self-governing democratic island of Taiwan?
The U.S. 'lack of staying power' is a feature of its democracy. It is well known that U.S. citizen's opinions about supporting a war tend to change over time. Just ask the Vietnamese or the Taliban for experience with this. No unrealistic fear mongering about China will change that fact.
It is however good to learn that the editors (finally) see the situation of Ukraine as unsustainable as it is:
Ukraine is also losing troops at a rate far beyond what it can sustain and continue fighting. The official casualty estimate of 400,000 killed or wounded is considered a vast undercount. Thousands of exhausted Ukrainian soldiers are deserting the front lines.
The editors know that it is over for Ukraine but they still reject to acknowledge the consequences. They say that a deal over Ukraine, any deal, would be bad but there is not even a hint of what an alternative might be:
Ukraine can hardly survive another year of this devastating war. But the haste to find a negotiated settlement could produce a bad one that would reward Mr. Putin for his land grab and guarantee he will launch a new attack for more territory once he has a chance to rebuild his depleted arsenal. A poor settlement would also leave Ukrainians bitter after seeing their homes, schools and factories destroyed, and friends and family members killed. Much of their anger would be directed at the Western backers who betrayed them. This is a fight America, and Ukraine, cannot lose, especially with a bad deal.
The war is lost. A hasty settlement will be bad. Russia will be embolden and the Ukrainians will be sad.
But what else is there to do? The editors don't know. They thus close with a sentence that does not even ('cannot lose') make sense.
