FROM J C

The Washington Post ran a surprising op-ed Thursday headlined, “The U.S. Warms to a Role for China in Resolving the Ukraine War.” It was written by David Ignatius, a Harvard College alum, D.C. foreign affairs columnist, and spy-genre author.

Yesterday: Not one inch! Today: Mr. Ignatius says that, after vowing to fight the Russians to the last Ukrainian, Joe Biden is now considering, maybe, never say ‘never’ and all that rot, a PEACE DEAL:

The Biden administration appears to be weighing whether to work with China to seek a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine war after what U.S. officials predict will be Ukrainian gains in their long-planned offensive.
At a WaPo event on Wednesday, obviously expecting something deceptive or obfuscatory, Ignatius asked Secretary of State Tony “Blinkey” Blinken about the possibility of a negotiated peace and got a surprising answer:

When I asked Blinken about working with China to achieve a stable outcome in Ukraine, he gave a surprisingly frank answer: “In principle, there’s nothing wrong with that if we have a country, whether it’s China or other countries that have significant influence that are prepared to pursue a just and durable peace. … We would welcome that, and it’s certainly possible that China would have a role to play in that effort. And that could be very beneficial.”
Both Blinken and the article referred to a “just peace,” and repeatedly used the term “territorial integrity,” which is a code phrase for Russia giving back the annexed Eastern territories. But Blinken didn’t say, not explicitly, that territorial integrity was an actual red line. And once negotiations start, they tend to have a kind of momentum, and you never know what the result will be. Even red lines are often crossed in a final compromise, because parties always posture before they start negotiating in order to get a better deal.

It looks more to me like this is yet another puzzle piece building a picture of American de-escalation prior to withdrawal from Ukraine. Consider this: Ignatius’ op-ed ran right before the Kremlin drone attack. In other words, the Kremlin drone attack happened right AFTER this op-ed ran, an op-ed that disclosed Biden’s wavering position.

Asked another way, could the drone attack been an attempt to shore up waffling allies? If Putin had been killed or injured, or even if the Kremlin was just visibly damaged, pro-war momentum — and Ukraine’s negotiating position — would have been energized even better than a counter-offensive, which on its best day looks like it might recover a few hard-to-pronounce Ukrainian towns nobody ever heard of.

If so, it would explain why the Ukrainians had a ready-to-go postage stamp illustrating the Kremlin’s dome engulfed in flames. That’s what they were hoping for.