In a rational political world, the key issues on the table in next Thursday’s debate would be the Biden administration’s foreign policy: that is, the president’s unwavering support for Ukraine in the war with Russia and his inability to have any significant impact on Israel’s continuing war in Gaza.

Of course on debate night the main attention will be on Joe Biden’s ability to stay focused and on point, both verbally and physically with the sure-to-be garrulous and off-topic Donald Trump.

So here is a breakdown on some of the issues, as I understand them from my contacts with various military and political insiders over many decades.

First of all, there is a serious concern among the Democratic Party leadership and the major Democratic fundraisers, primarily the big donors in New York City, about Biden’s ability to defeat Trump in November. This is, of course, not to be spoken of in public.

A major touchstone for many will be Biden’s performance in the debate. The president is going to need to match the intensity he demonstrated at his State of the Union address in March next week to keep his contributors happy. A shaky performance, I have been told by two longtime politicos who have direct knowledge, will increase pressure on Democratic Party to do something drastic, and unprecedented, before the November election.

On the other hand, there are some political insiders who argue that the president would have time to recover from an early flop and do better at the second debate, scheduled for September 10.

One extreme possibility in the case of a very bad showing Thursday night, I have been told, is to obtain agreement from Biden and his family advisers for the president to come to the Democratic convention in Chicago in August and accept the accolades of a first-round delegate victory; then he would decline the nomination and throw the nominating process open to all. The new shoe-in candidate, in this vision, might be Gavin Newsom, the young and photogenic governor of California, or the popular Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois. The vice presidential nominee—in this scenario—would be up to the convention delegates to select.

One longtime friend of the president acknowledged in a background chat with me yesterday that such talk is happening inside the party. He said such possibilities were more likely in the days when the Democratic Party was run by strong-arm leaders like Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago or Mayor Frank Rizzo of Philadelphia. “The party now,” he told me, is atoning for past mistakes by “shoveling huge amounts of campaign money into state organizations around the country”—something that was not done when Trump stunned Democrats by defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016—“and they think that is going to be a game changer” in November. Newsom and Pritzker are attractive politicians, he said, and added, with a laugh: “The only way they’re going to get [Biden] out is feet first.”

None of this would be an issue, perhaps, if the president’s foreign policy were not the disaster it has turned out to be. Biden is continuing to send billions to Ukraine for its war with Russia and urging America’s allies in NATO and elsewhere to do the same. He has yet to focus on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most recent peace proposals that suggest there are issues about Ukrainian lands that have fallen to Russia that could be on the table.

The new round of hints came last week in a speech at the Russian Foreign Ministry in which Putin again made clear that any acceptable agreement must call for Ukraine to “adopt a neutral, non-aligned status, be nuclear-free and undergo demilitarization and de-nazification.” Crimea and the four Ukrainian oblasts that now remain largely under Russian control, he added, “should be acknowledged” as parts “of the Russian Federation.” He also indicated that there was much bargaining to be done: “These foundational principles need to be formalized through fundamental international agreements in the future.” In other words, let us negotiate.

One well-informed American official told me that there has been, as always, some informal communications about concessions between Moscow and the West that both sides could accept. For example, he said, there is Russia’s ambition to attack and seize Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, twenty miles south of the Russian border. Now under siege amid heavy fighting on its outskirts, the historic city could be saved from massive destruction if both sides agree to consider it an independent free territory as was Trieste, a disputed city bordering Italy and Yugoslavia, for seven years after World War II. I was also told that Putin’s speech came after a series of highly secret backchannel communications between some in the West and Russians whose aim was to spare the pending Russian attack on Kharkiv, which is also a major transportation hub.

The official said that the likelihood of significant Ukrainian battlefield success remains low, given Russia’s vast supply of troops and materiel. Despite Ukrainian and American reports of successes near Kharkiv, he added, last Sunday 300 members of one of Ukraine’s most elite units, the 92nd Assault Brigade, which was established twenty-five years ago, was surrounded and captured by Russian troops, with 150 deaths and little word in the Western press.

“Biden just declared war on Russia and nobody cares,” the official said of the president’s recent decision to escalate the reach of American missiles supplied to Ukraine. “It is a theatrical performance.”

Vir: Seymour Hersh