THE WAR AND ENDGAME IN UKRAINE

 

“War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.”   Carl von Clausewitz

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. The attack was an unexpected escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014 when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula. The two combatants have each suffered more than 100,000 casualties resulting in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides.  Russian missiles have caused mass civilian loss of life. Ukrainian soldiers report frequent Russian atrocities.

Ukraine’s economy shrank by roughly 30 percent in 2022, and more than 30 percent of its population has been displaced.  Its infrastructure has been decimated with 40 percent of its electricity-generating capacity wiped out.

This commentary will discuss two topics that have occupied my thoughts since the conflict began. How was this brutal conflict possible after the horrors of two European world wars and now with nuclear weapons everywhere on the European continent?  Second, what is the endgame if it is in our nation’s interest to fund the war effort militarily and support the Ukrainians diplomatically? 

At the end of 2021, western intelligence services were certain of two things. First, Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, had met his major objectives by occupying Crimea, and there was little to be gained by Putin starting a broader conflict. Second, if Russia did invade Ukraine, it would quickly win the war. Instead, the conflict in Ukraine has plunged Europe into the largest, longest land war since WWII. The violence has affected much of the world both economically and politically.

An excellent authority in understanding why nations engage in war is Margaret MacMillan’s comprehensive study: War: How Conflict Shaped Us, Random House (October 6, 2020.) She investigates the subject’s terror and fascination, as well as its scope and persistence. Ms. MacMillan reminds us “The instinct to fight may be innate in human nature, but war—organized violence—comes with organized society. War has shaped humanity’s history, its social and political institutions, its values, and ideas. Our very language, our public spaces, our private memories, and some of our greatest cultural treasures reflect the glory and the misery of war. War is an uncomfortable and challenging subject not least because it brings out both the vilest and the noblest aspects of humanity.” Certainly, Russia has earned the title of vile aggressor and Ukraine of noble defender.

To comprehend the war in Ukraine, one must attempt to penetrate the mind of Vladimir Putin. While no one is sure what motivates him, Putin's speeches over the last decade cast him as the strong leader who could reclaim Russia’s lost greatness. He believes the breakup of the Soviet Union’s empire was a mistake.  Putin often describes himself as sharing the ambitions of 18th-century Russian tsar, Peter the Great. He seeks to portray Russia as the defender of all who challenge the West and its democratic system of government.

Under this view, Putin started the war with Ukraine as a proxy conflict with the West, to demonstrate his strength. After 17 months of fighting, the conflict has taken on a very different meaning for Putin, his survival. Many believe that if he loses the war, his regime will end.

What business does the United States have in spending billions and depleting its military stockpiles for a regional conflict in Eastern Europe? When the war began, there was an outpouring of emotional support for the Ukrainian people defending their homeland. As the war drags on, doubts begin to appear, and support could be waning. Recently, far-right Republicans sought to use a Congressional Defense Bill to defund the Ukrainian War conflict.   

In truth, most members of Congress and a majority of the American people continue to support the war effort. The Ukraine conflict is not Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. No American blood is being shed for an unwinnable cause. The war has been a strategic windfall for NATO and the United States. Russia has been badly damaged and isolated. With the addition of Finland and Sweden, NATO now borders the entire Baltic Sea. Germany is finally pulling its weight militarily and is no longer dependent on Russian oil.

For those who believe that American foreign policy should support a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed, knowledgeable experts disagree. A senior analyst on Russia, Mason Clark, wrote for Time Magazine: “Any Russian invasion of Ukraine, now or in the future, will inevitably harm Europe, endanger NATO, and entail the risk of a conventional or nuclear escalation. The U.S. must not kick the problem down the road by accepting a temporary ceasefire that would stop the current fighting while raising the risks of a renewed Russian invasion. The U.S. should instead enable Ukraine to comprehensively defeat the current Russian invasion.”

A pause in the war would simply permit the Russian military to reload its arsenal and give it time to go on a total war footing to conscript and train a larger army. Only a just settlement with security guarantees makes sense for the Western alliance.

More than anyone, the Ukrainians themselves who are absorbing the killing of its citizens and the destruction of its infrastructure, understand the endgame. For them, the conclusion of the war involves reclaiming their territory and convincing Russia not to try a later invasion. They are fighting and dying to avoid leaving this war to their children. Ukraine deserves our continued support.