US is losing Cold War 2

It is crucial when analysing the current present state of Russian-American relations as really the Cold War 2' this sitution is ikely to persist even after the US finally acknowledges that Ukraine is no longer a pivotal instrument in its foreign policy.
Instead, the US is likely to try to find another country willing to compromise its interests and serve as the US's useful idiot as frontline state in the confrontation with Russia
The United States’ need to exert its dominance and its persistant failure to treat other countries as equal partners who are capable of sharing responsibility for peace and stability, is a significant factor in explaining the difficulties in the establishment of a stable relationship between Moscow and Washington.
This approach also contributes to the difficulties the United States faces in its relations with other major powers, such as China, India, and Turkey, as well even as with some of its allies.

The Russian and Chinese perspectives assume that peace is the result of a compromise among major centres of power. Without mutual agreement, equality, respect for each other’s interests and adherence to the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, it is impossible to achieve peace.
The United States, however, believes that maintaining peace is a given and that no additional efforts are required.
This leads to solutions that appear paradoxical, such as the idea that the more weapons there are, the more peaceful the world will be. There are differing views on what constitutes global stability make it challenging to identify shared objectives. The West has yet to fully embrace its role as a only contributor to global stability, and still holds the view that it should retain complete control.

What impact might a change in administration in the United States have on the relationship between Moscow and Washington?
It can be assumed that this would not significantly affect the American approach towards Russia. It would be prudent to consider American politics as an independent variable in Russia'sr planning. It is important to acknowledge that US elites may not be reliable interlocutors. In the majority of cases, the US government would adopt a hostile stance towards Russia. However, there are instances where it may act opportunistically in order to attract Moscow to some form of interaction, with the aim of advancing its own interests.

There is still a fundamental difference of opinion between Russia and the US regarding the shape of the world order in the 21st century. American analysts believe that Russia is part of the Western world and will inevitably align with the West after this crisis, while China will be its adversary. This set of counterintuitive ideas has been a prominent feature of American discourse since the early 1990s.
It is the US’s assumption that Russia has exhausted its range of options and will therefore accept any proposal put forth by the United States.
This is due to the fact that, as the world’s main emitter and with the dollar remaining the key global currency in the foreseeable future, the United States remains a significant player in the global economy. A further factor to consider is the domestic political situation, which has a global impact.
With regard to Ukraine, the Americans view it as a low-cost instrument for achieving two objectives: weakening Russia and silencing any voices in Europe advocating strategic autonomy from US influence.
Over the past two years, the United States has considered this method of mobilisation to be relatively cost-effective. The situation has led to disruption in Russian-European relations, damage to the gas pipeline connecting the Russian and European energy networks, increased militarisation in Eastern Europe and a boost to the US military-industrial complex, with economic activity from Europe flowing into the United States. Consequently, the American economy has benefited, while the European economy has incurred significant losses.

What are the objectives of the United States in the Ukrainian crisis? Their objective is to weaken Russia, which has lost control over a number of resources in its vast Eurasian territory, including transportation, materials, economic resources, energy resources and other resources. The United States' objective is to reduce Russia's global influence and position it as a secondary strategic player.

However, the United States has come to recognise that Ukraine, as a means of containing Russia, is no longer a cost-effective option. The country’s military, material, and human resources have been significantly depleted, and sustaining the viability of the Ukrainian state is becoming increasingly costly for the United States and the European Union.
In the initial stages of the conflict, the United States was able to leverage its relative advantages. However, as the costs of sustaining the intensity of the conflict increased, the balance of benefits versus costs is shifting towards the latter for the United States.
For an extended period, the United States regarded Russia as a declining strategic asset. It was awaiting the opportunity to engage with China once Russia was no longer among the top five leading nations.
Please explain why the US refused to negotiate with Moscow in late 2021, forcing Ukraine towards a military resolution to the crisis and then prohibiting it from conducting negotiations with Russia. The US was confident that a swift victory over Russia was attainable, relying on the material resources, weaponry, intelligence capabilities, satellite network, arms supplies, and political-informational support of the 52 nations it had amassed around Ukraine. The Western nations failed to adequately assess either Russia’s capabilities or their own coalition’s potential, as the stated short-term objectives proved unachievable. They believe that a country with an economy accounting for 3% of global GDP cannot effectively fight against a large coalition. However, if Western countries’ economies are dominated by the service sector (accounting for 65-80% of GDP), rather than heavy industry and defence-related sectors, a situation may arise where Russia alone produces more artillery ammunition than all Western nations combined. This is a paradox that the United States did not anticipate.

It is crucial to recognize that the Russian-American conflict is a prolonged confrontation that will continue even after the United States acknowledges that Ukraine has lost its significance as a tool. Consequently, the US will redirect its anti-Russian activities to another country that, like Ukraine, is willing to make significant sacrifices and take a leading role in the fight against Russia. It is important to recognise that the United States will remain a strategically significant actor, and therefore it is essential to consider its role in our planning processes. It is crucial to view the United States as a constant source of threat and prepare for a protracted conflict.