Where is the War in Ukraine headed?

I penned this three years ago. It is still applicable

Europe is now experiencing the largest land war since World War II. The history of the conflict (which was largely based on power politics and ethnic differences) is centuries old. The seeds of the current clash date back to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

In 1994, Russia, Ukraine, Britain and the United States signed the Budapest Memorandum, pledging that none of the nations would use force or threats against Ukraine and all would respect its sovereignty and existing borders.

After the overthrow of a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, in 2014 the Russians invade the Crimean Peninsula (home to their Black Sea fleet) and supported ethnic Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine. There has been low-level conflict in the region since then.

In 2021, the Russians outright invaded Ukraine with a primary thrust towards the Capital Kiev in an attempt to “decapitate” the leadership and cause a collapse of the country. If nothing else, it is clear that Russia does not feel bound by agreements or constrained by international norms.

Now NATO effectively finds itself in a proxy war with Russia. While not directly involved, the offensive economic sanctions against Russia and defensive provision of weapons and support make it clear that the West is fully invested in the independence (and west-leaning stance) of the Ukraine.

The United States has provided significant military support to the current regime in Ukraine. This ordnance and equipment, includes some of the most sophisticated weapons in our arsenal. We have given tens of millions of dollars in military aide and committed millions more as have several other NATO nations.

Our largess is not without a price. We are digging into our own stock of weaponry. This is particularly critical when it comes to smart munitions.

One official stated, “We have blown through seven years’ worth of javelin missiles in Ukraine (and) 30% of our Stinger stockpile – these are missiles systems that we are going to need…particularly if we are going to try and help Taiwan defend itself from a prospective Chinese invasion…” In addition, other materials have now decreased to “uncomfortably low” levels and “is not the level we would like to go into combat.”

Moreover, the stated level of aid is not reflective of the true cost of the materials given. Many of the production lines needed to replace that ordinance are not capable of meeting the increased demand. We may give them a million dollars of weaponry, but it will likely cost us multimillions to replace them.

This brings us to the critical questions. “What are America’s objectives in supporting the Ukraine and continued conflict? How do they mesh (or conflict) with other security goals? More important what is the desired “End State” In other words, what do we want the future to look like if our objectives are met?

The Biden Administration has yet to articulate a coherent strategic rationale to justify the costs and risks of the current US policy. They have stated that we cannot tolerate Russian aggression against an independent country, that to accept this would promote further offensive action by Russia and other likeminded authoritarian regimes (much like the discredited “falling domino” theory of communist advancement during the Cold War). Yet, we tolerated Russia’s occupation of the Crimea (a part of the Ukraine) back in 2016 with little more than diplomatic bluster and relatively mild economic sanctions. From a “balance of power” perspective, this is simply the Russians consolidating their “sphere of influence,” regardless of whether it is perceived as blatant aggression by the West.

Others argue that we must support “democracies.” However, we should perhaps be more definitive when we use the term “democracy” and Ukraine in the same sentence. In 2021, the Democracy Index didn’t consider Ukraine either a “full” or “flawed” democracy. It was listed as a “hybrid regime” only 5 spots ahead of Russia in the rankings. Prior to the recent hostilities, the Ukraine posed a significant cyber-threat to the West. They may be the best we can get, but they are not unequivocally the “good guys.”

So why should we support the Ukraine? Perhaps we should start by removing the rhetoric and focus on our own national interests, which include a vibrant economy as well as military security.

In that light, the most coherent argument is the old adage, “An enemy of my enemy is my friend.” They are tying up and degrading Russia capacity to wage war which diminishes its direct threat to our interests, provided the conflict does not escalate to nuclear weapons (something that is of growing concern as the fortunes of war turn against the Kremlin).

Our current (total) support for the Ukraine is beginning to impact our ability to meet other (perhaps more crucial) imperatives. One might argue that China is our real peer adversary. If so, why are we degrading our capability to meet that potential threat? We need to think seriously about what we are willing to give away.

So, what should our “End Game” in the Ukraine be? First, a “stable” region is desirable. Ideally it would have a “hobbled” Russian military and an isolated and weakened Russian state. However, we should not push for overt regime change. (What might Putin do if he is about to lose it all?)

We would also like a functioning, independent Ukrainian state, but not necessarily back to their original borders (which might pose an existential threat to Russia). Realistically, a resolution will not be military victory (on either side). Ultimately, it will be a diplomatic accord (likely on mutually unsatisfactory terms). This likely means leaving the Ukraine as a “rump state” in what’s left after an armistice line (similar to the arrangement that exists in Korea).

We need to begin to send the message to Ukraine that our support has limitations. We should be judicious in our future military aid. Ultimately, we need to understand that “their” national interests and “our” own are not synonymous and act accordingly.