US takes diplomatic stance: distancing from Ukraine to mediate talks with Russia

It is usually said that this is out of fear of the potential disintegration of Russia. 

Consequently, the idea is for Ukraine to 'not win too much.' But I believe this is only part of the story.

 I would hypothetically decode this logic roughly as follows.

1. All wars end at the negotiating table. This is an axiom. Therefore, this war will come to an end through negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. (The scenario in which Russia disintegrates so rapidly that there is simply no one left to sit at the negotiating table is not considered or dismissed as catastrophic).
2. The negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, like most negotiations of this kind, will require a mediator - a 'third party.' For the United States and/or leading EU countries to serve as this 'third party,' they must at least in some way distance themselves from Ukraine.
3. But if you give Ukraine absolutely everything it asks for, such distancing will be impossible. In that case, Ukraine and Western countries will be perceived by Russia as one party without any nuances or distinctions.
4. So, in this scenario, someone else (China? Turkey?) will eventually become the 'third party' in the anticipated negotiations. However, it will be less strategically advantageous for the US and the EU compared to if they played that role.

I am not evaluating this logic in any way, I'm just trying to decode it. 

About author: Oleksiy Panych, philosopher, member of the Ukrainian PEN Center, blogger.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by blog authors.