by Doug Bandow Posted on
The Russo-Ukraine war is destructive and dangerous. Much of Washington believes that a win by Kyiv would serve America’s interests. However, pursuit of victory would be far more costly than Ukraine’s advocates acknowledge. The US and leading European states should seek a modus vivendi with Russia that would secure Ukraine’s independence and yield a stable if imperfect regional peace.
Of course, only the Ukrainian government can decide what it is willing to agree to. However, the allies should make clear that they will not provide Kyiv with a blank check. It cannot expect support for an endless campaign in search of victory.
No doubt, the Baltic countries, NATO’s most aggressive but among its weakest members, remain ready to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian and American. However, US policy should focus on protecting this nation. The world is filled with good people stuck in bad neighborhoods – not just in Europe, but consider Taiwan, Nepal, Mongolia, and Mexico, which lost half its territory to an avaricious young American republic. (Canadians had better success in beating off several US attempts at conquest.) Geographic bad luck doesn’t warrant Washington going to war on another nation’s behalf.
The initial shock of Russia’s unjustified aggression triggered a wave of popular support for Ukraine in the US and Europe. Kyiv’s unexpected success made supporting Ukraine easy, spurring a dramatic expansion in what weapons Washington and European governments were prepared to supply. In the same way Ukraine’s and its armorers’ aims also grew. Initially the objective was to sustain the Ukrainian state. Soon there was talk of weakening Russia, preventing Moscow from launching a similar misadventure in the future, defeating Russia, pushing Moscow’s forces out of areas seized in 2014, and even ousting Vladimir Putin.
All worthy objectives, perhaps, but likely achievable only at great cost and risk. Ominously, the interventionist Greek Chorus in Washington also insisted that the US abandon independent decision-making and give Kyiv whatever the Zelensky government requested. For instance, retired Gen. Philip Breedlove argued: “We in the West have to decide that Ukraine and its future is to be determined by Ukrainians and we need to keep our nose out of it. We need to support their decision and help them move forward.” Just shut up and pass the ammunition – along with tanks, long-range rockets, airplanes, and even nuclear weapons, if Poland’s former defense and foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski has his way.
However, America’s and Europe’s interests are not the same as Kyiv’s. All other things being equal, it would be great to insulate Ukraine from its position next to its large, authoritarian, and threatening neighbor. But that objective is not worth going to war with a nuclear-armed power, which is why members of the transatlantic alliance spent 14 years ostentatiously misleading successive Ukrainian governments, seeming to promise membership while refusing to consider membership. No NATO member was prepared to fight for Ukraine.
Recent Comments