Photo Credit: Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images file
Topic of the Month
Why Backing Ukraine Still Matters
October 2024
More than two years into the war, and with the potential of a new U.S. presidential administration looming, Ukrainians are wondering how much longer they can rely on American support. Ukraine’s future, and perhaps the West’s, hangs in the balance.
"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen."
Millions of Americans are experiencing a creeping feeling of dread as the 2024 U.S. presidential election looms nearer. Nearly 6000 miles away in eastern Europe, they are not alone.
As the war to defend Ukraine from Russia's invasion rages on for its third year, many Ukrainians wonder whether their fight can continue without a Democratic administration at the helm. Given my interest in international relations, I've been following this conflict more closely than the average American, albeit still in a limited fashion given the constraints of work and life. I made some time earlier this month to watch the video below, which provides an on-the-ground view of how the war looks to soldiers trying to hold the Ukraine's eastern flank.
Almost 3 years into the war, these scenes are still hard to fathom. The contexts have changed so drastically, but one should not forget that only a few years ago many of these Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines dodging Russian artillery fire were farmers, truck drivers, software developers, and even hairdressers. From the U.S. perspective, a country obsessed with patriotism and fighting for a just cause, I do believe that many Americans who properly pay attention to this conflict acknowledge an admiration for how Ukrainians have rallied to defend their homeland.
Alas, in the midst of an election cycle far more focused on domestic issues like the economy and the "culture wars", Ukraine has been largely relegated to the political sidelines. While many Americans, *especially* those on the right, pay lip service to military service, few seem to have any moral or strategic sensibilities about the role our armed forces should actually serve.
The situation in Ukraine offers the United States an appealing strategic tradeoff. For limited financial expenditure, the the U.S. can support an ally in need while avoid the loss of U.S. lives, limit a strategic rival, and lay claim to the moral high ground in supporting a country clearly oppressed by a larger bully. Few of these points resonate with the American public distracted with their own problems. Fewer still probably remember that Ukraine provided military support during Operation Iraqi Freedom, with U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even commending Ukraine for its "excellent support".
Last week, Donald Trump met with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, once again repeating his claim that he would end the war on his first day in office (or even before based on his comments during the presidential debate). Such sentiments are political blustering of course, but they underlie a larger theme within the Republican party - the transactional nature of U.S. foreign policy. Ukrainians rightly worry that should Trump come to office, the war would pivot - from a heroic stand against tyranny to a blunt and cold analysis of Ukrainian versus Russian strength.
What Trump would actually do if he inherits this war is, I think, more unclear than his rhetoric lets on. Regardless of his intentions, however, I want to offer three key reasons for why I think the United States should continue funding Ukraine's defense.
Russia Will Rearm
Fighting a war, and this war in particular, is an exhausting and brutalizing affair. No doubt there are some Ukrainians who wonder if it wouldn't be better to simply cede the eastern territories Russia claims and allow the rest of the country to return to peace. But how long would such a peace last?
The likely answer, of course, is that the peace would not last forever. Let's lay out the best case scenario. In this series of events, Ukraine, exhausted and depleted, sue for peace with Russia, ceding any claim to the eastern territories of Luhansk, Donestk, Zaporizhia, Kherson, and Crimea. An agreement would have to see Russia acknowledge Ukraine's political legitimacy and right to exist; more so, Ukraine would have to insist on EU and NATO membership. Retreating to their new borders, Ukraine should be paranoid, digging new trenches, laying anti-tank mines, and implementing other measures to spoil any future invasions.
Not only is this a likely scenario at this point in time, but it is completely possible that it does deter Russia for long enough to properly secure Ukrainian nationhood into the future. The problem with this scenario is that it assumes too much about the ability to deter Russia. The biggest source of security that Ukraine has in this new scenario is Article 5 of NATO, a collective defense provision that would legally require the United States (with actual military force this time) should Russia invade Ukraine again.
With the growing threat of China, limited US military resources, and the immense fear of a nuclear-armed conflict, there is reason to doubt that Article 5 would hold. The classic line of reasoning asks, "Would Washington really trade New York for Kyiv?". Perhaps the biggest source of insecurity is the transactional foreign policy of the new Republican party. Article 5, in both law and principle, assumes a shared sense of collective duty to one another. For Republicans, this old idea is increasingly trumped by leverage-seeking negotiations. Maybe we'll help Ukraine again, if there's something in return.
It’s Cost-Effective
Robert Kennedy Jr, now on the campaign trail for Donald Trump, echoed an oft-repeated line you'll hear from critics of funding Ukraine's defense, remarking to heavy applause, "Don’t you think we could use that money over here, in this country?" As taxpayers, there's just good sense in asking how your money is being put to good use, and it's no different here. So to RFK's point, what is the $175 billion sent to Ukraine getting the United States?
One way to measure the impact of this funding, which we know has been put to use on equipment, training, and budgetary support for Ukraine's government, is to look at how it has impacted Russia's finances. After all, one key purpose of funding the Ukrainians, beyond supporting their independence, is to weaken Russia as a geopolitical rival. Russia's defense budget now accounts for 40% of government expenditure, an astonishing figure in addition to international sanctions has led to a strained economy overly dependent on oil for revenue.
Compared to the United States, or even its ally China, Russia has weakened its economic competitiveness drastically. It is not at all clear that sanctions alone would have had this effect, but no doubt the vast attrition that Russia is experiencing during their invasion - 300,000 casualties and 18000+ tanks lost and 10,000+ missiles/drones expended - has had its toll and Russia's ability to keep pace with other advanced economies.
It's crass to mention, but make no mistake that the U.S. military is learning valuable strategic lessons about modern combat through the sacrifices Ukrainians are making in the fields today. Without having to spend any American lives, and by spending less than a 10th of a percent of the US budget, we've weakened a major geopolitical rival whose aims are both detrimental and disruptive to US interests. That's a pretty substantial achievement.
A new documentary highlights the tragic cost of the war
In a director’s statement for the movie, Oksana Karpovych explains that she was working in Ukraine as a producer for the news network Al Jazeera when the invasion began. After the intercepted calls were publicly released, she and a crew of four — including her cinematographer, the British photographer Christopher Nunn — traveled across Ukraine gathering images of devastation, which she has juxtaposed with calls intercepted between March and November 2022. The result is a haunting, often jolting depiction of the profound toll that the war has exerted on soldiers and civilians alike. - The New York Times
It’s the right thing to do
There's a reason I put the most idealistic point last. Both to let it linger and to admit that it is the most likely to fall on deaf ears. Having travailed the ins and outs of the last two centuries of U.S. foreign policy, I'm no longer naïve to the cold calculating nature of US diplomacy, disturbingly disparate from the Hollywood version of patriotism that lives in the public zeitgest. But "doing the right thing", in this case honoring our commitments to like-minded people who share our values and interests, also makes practical sense.
We have a history of letting down our allies, be they individuals, groups, or entire nations. The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, neglect of the Kurds in Northern Syria, and Trump's hardball stance against NATO all leave a bad taste in the mouth of our allies and potential allies. The effects of each instance of neglect may be marginal in isolation, but in aggregate they signal to America’s rivals that our resolve is weak, and that America is not willing to support its allies if it comes at a cost to itself.
Doing the right thing is so often a self-reinforcing principle, winning like-minded allies to the U.S. cause while martialing their resources and ideas in support of U.S. interests. I used to work for a company that employed Ukrainian software developers, who were an instrumental pillar in supporting the prosperity of a U.S. startup. Our allies make us stronger in more than just material wealth, though, and we would be both materially and spiritually poorer to abandon them.
There's no doubt Trump has his tendencies, but given his fickle nature, evidence of what he actually did with Afghanistan (nothing), and some of the hawkish geopolitical advisors that may be on his staff, he might not actually change the status quo all that much. That would be welcome news for Ukrainians, who still have a long way to go in securing their territory from Russia.
There's fair debate to be had about what the realistic war aims for Ukraine should be now that Russia has gained so much territory. Despite their brutishness, Russia does still wield many tools - notably digital and nuclear - that could threaten stability in the West. This war should not drag on forever, that is also true.
Still, to abandon Ukraine now when they are already on the back foot would be calamitous both for their own fortunes and the long-term strategic interests of the United States. Arming Ukraine today is helping create the conditions of a lasting peace with Russia on terms that Ukrainians can be proud of rather than forced into. Playing a supportive role in providing funding, equipment, and strategic counsel puts the U.S. in the driver's seat for European negotiations and sends a strong signal to Russia that they are incapable of listing the mighty ship that is the battleship of US democracy.