We made the case in June to expect a long conflict in Ukraine, while hoping we would be wrong. It’s a terrible enough condition for those directly impacted in the region, yet we were also concerned with the risks of energy shortages in a cold European winter and the cover which an extended conflict would provide Xi Jinping and the CCP in China. The weather was favorable, thankfully, but as anti-CCP sentiments swell across the U.S. and within Congress, one senses the window of opportunity for greater mischief from China is narrowing. An America weakened further by exhausting our armaments supply in Ukraine is ever more vulnerable.
Excruciatingly, we plod into the second year of the conflict with minimal change save for the loss of lives, material and property without end in sight. For what? Perhaps the United States should not continue to fund and support a large loss of others’ blood and our treasure without a full and reasonable explanation which informs the American people of the cause and specific objectives. $115 billion pledged and one year later, we are owed some real talk.
There are two schools of thought about which side ultimately provoked the present conflict, perhaps depending upon the length of time one is willing to look back. Russia physically moved hostile forces into Ukraine in 2022 in an invasion, apparently with the intention of taking control of the central government. We say apparently, for if that were the actual goal, the execution was so poor as to call into question the capabilities of the Russian army. Everything since those early days suggests the weakness of the Russians, and further reveals the utter lack of enthusiasm for the fight shared by its increasingly ill-equipped conscripts.
From those whose timetable begins right there, we hear sentiments such as “this aggression must not stand” and “we must stop Russia here or they will march all the way to the Baltic Sea and Poland, reconstituting the Soviet Union.” This describes the official U.S. position, to the extent one exists. One year in, the problem is the specific goals have not been communicated to the American people. Stop Russian aggression? But they are a nuclear power. They’d never use their nuclear weapons. Really?
The 1980s Cold War mentality is still overrepresented in American officialdom, building up Putin as one with mythical strength and ability, rather than an aging dictator struggling to maintain his hold over a rapidly declining power. The brain drain out of Russia is beyond repair, the only question is how does it devolve as a nation. Realistically, Russia’s people have neither the means nor the will to reconstitute the Soviet Union. What about Ukraine?
What are we defending in Ukraine?
Those who look further back through the history of Ukraine and Russia may have a more nuanced view of the causes and perhaps solutions to the present conflict. I am not a fan of Vladimir Putin. While growing up in Russia is no picnic, he has chosen the evil path of suppression and conquest which should disqualify him from leadership in a civilized society. Sadly, we must deal with what is, not what we wish it to be. In this case, with some perspective, a compromised solution may become more palatable.
After the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, the Ukrainian People’s Republic of Soviets was created and proclaimed independence in January 1918. Numerous military conflicts ended with the re-establishment of Soviet power and the formation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1922. In December 1922, the Ukrainian SSR became one of the founding states of the Soviet Union (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR).
Ukraine suffered heavy civilian losses and destruction under a cruel German occupation during WW II. Postwar, many Ukrainians hoped for independence, and Crimea was transferred from Russian to Ukrainian control in 1954. Since that time, Ukraine has been riven by nationalist separatist movements on one hand intertwined with Russia-sympathizers seeking closer ties with her larger neighbor on the other. With the final collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was granted independent nation status in December 1991.
Modern day Ukraine
Ukraine through history has been at the crossroads of empires. At the fall of the Soviet Union, she was the third largest nuclear force in the world. Yes, the number of Soviet missiles inherited by Ukraine made it second only to the U.S. and Russia. What was to become of Ukraine’s arsenal? In sum, it gave up all its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for the assurances of the Budapest Memorandum, that the three other treaty signatories — the U.S., the U.K. and Russia — will "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine."
Since that time, Ukraine has been pushed and pulled between the west (NATO plus the European Union) and Russia, with a populace divided in loyalty. The presidential election of 2004 brought Ukraine to the brink of disintegration and civil war as the two rival sides fought a bitter campaign featuring the pro-western candidate poisoned with dioxin during the race. The Russian favorite was declared the winner, provoking the Orange Revolution whereby democracy-loving protestors moved into the streets accusing fraud and deceit. After court intervention and a third vote, the pro-western Viktor Yushchenko was named President.
Yushchenko spent the following years working to get Ukraine admitted to NATO and solidify its membership in the west. This was not acceptable to Putin and Russia, who viewed this as a violation of the independence assured in the Budapest Memorandum. In 2009, the incoming Obama administration advocated for Ukraine’s NATO membership and engaged in building closer ties to Ukraine. Overtures to join the western alliance were understood to be a great irritant to Putin, which was fine with an Obama administration filled as it was with leftover Cold Warriors.
A fly in the western ointment appeared with the 2010 election of Viktor Yanukovich, the Russia-friendly loser of the 2004 contest, who quickly declared that Ukraine should remain an independent state. Putin views Ukraine’s independence as an existential condition on his border. Geographically challenged, Russia’s trade access to the western world through its only warm water port in Crimea is irreplaceable. Consider how we might feel were Canada or Mexico planning to join a military pact with China while welcoming Chinese forces on their soil.
At this point, the Obama administration decided to make historical backwater Ukraine an important component of its foreign policy, seemingly to continue the poking of Putin, a most popular sport within the U.S. intel community. Vice President Biden was installed as the point man in Ukraine, coincidentally around the same time his son Hunter received a million dollar annual contract to serve as a Director of Ukraine’s largest private gas company. The rest, as they say, is history. This historical context helps frame our present dilemma.
The 2014 turning point
Protests broke out in 2013 after the pro-Russian authorities halted legislation aimed at the integration of the country with the European Union. The Obama Administration then helped orchestrate rising levels of street protest against the Yanukovich regime, an effort managed by point people including Victoria Nuland, Undersecretary of State then and now, and Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor to Joe Biden then and now. Months of violent protests swept Yanukovich from office in February, replaced by a pro-Western interim government to the pleasure of the U.S.
In the confusion, heavily armed pro-Russian separatists seized government buildings in Crimea and, with the support of Russian troops, declared independence from the central government in Kiev. Russia formally annexed Crimea in March with little opposition, as many senior Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea were of Russian training and descent. The following month Russia moved elements into the eastern regions of Ukraine which are the heart of today’s battles. Thus, the preconditions for the 2022 Russian incursion were created in 2014.
What did the Obama administration do? Did they marshal a coalition of NATO to funnel arms and supplies to Ukraine? After all, it was a clear invasion and taking of Ukrainian property and a thrust into Ukraine in other areas. In a word, no. "This is not another cold war that we're entering into. The United States and NATO do not seek any conflict with Russia," Obama said. "Now is not the time for bluster… …There are no easy answers, no military solution." The administration pointedly declined to furnish offensive weapons of any kind to Ukraine while continuing to aid and support its resistance to Russia internally.
Why no military response in 2014? Maybe they thought “well, Crimea was part of Russia before, and they really have been using the ports there for a century, it’s not worth going to war against Russia.” Maybe they knew Ukraine was a country with a long history of corruption in leadership and decided to use more subtle forms of influence and resistance, biding time before upending the region further. It’s hard to know.
Russia Russia Russia- the 2016 interrupt
President Trump’s 2016 election interrupted the growing symbiosis between the Cold Warriors in U.S. leadership and Ukraine and provoked a reaction from within. The surprised Democrats were able to use first the Russia Russia Russia/ Trump collusion probe and then his Ukrainian phone call to conjure up the first impeachment against the President, effectively tying him in knots while they ran out his clock. Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Ukraine were truncated and he shifted his focus to China, but that’s another Musing.
You can see where the long-standing animus towards Russia going back to the 1950s has seeded all that is now taking place. Putin wanted assurances that a NATO-allied Ukraine would be forbidden, that he could have a buffer on his border. He wanted to memorialize his access to and ownership of Crimea, which the Obama administration had not seen fit to oppose. In essence, if peace and continued stability in the region were the actual goals of the U.S., there was a deal that could be done. Life is not always fair or just, but negotiations with adversaries are sometimes required to sustain the growth of nations.
This madness must stop
At first incursion a year ago, it seemed the Biden Administration was expecting a swift Russian victory, offering President Zelenskyy safe passage out of Kiev in the first days. When he turned the offer down and said he wished to fight, the Biden Cold Warriors saw a chance to teach Putin a lesson once and for all, perhaps remove him from power for good. They assumed war footing, blew up Russia’s main gas pipelines to Europe and framed the battle as one of good vs. evil, of defense vs. conquest. Once this narrative took hold, there’s been no turning back.
President Biden, with much the same team in place as under President Obama in 2014, has resumed the effective takeover of Ukraine, whereby the U.S. is now solely responsible for funding the daily operations as well as the military operations of the nation. Ukraine is our vassal, and we seem to be willing to fight the Russians down to the last Ukrainian male. We have pledged to provide $115 billion in economic and military aid, nearly twice Russia’s annual defense budget, with pledges recently to persevere “as long as it takes”. Yet we are withholding the weapons they want, the weapons that would assure victory. Warplanes and tanks and longer-range precision missiles. Real war stuff. That’s the mantra, as long as it takes, but without what they need.
Towards what end?
As long as what takes? What is the desired outcome? Colin Kahl, the U.S. Undersecretary of defense for policy recently noted that the U.S. considers the Crimean peninsula part of Ukraine. Is that our red line? Will we now risk thermonuclear war with Russia over Crimea? President Obama didn’t raise a fist. What’s different now?
Who wins from a protracted struggle? Obviously, the U.S. military industrial complex which is stoking the munitions factories and ramping up. Veteran western Cold Warriors who love to see Putin squirm and Russia suffer. Ukrainian oligarchs siphoning and distributing the shotgunned billions in aid flowing in. Certainly President Xi in China, who loves to see the U.S. distracted and weakened. He’s loving the spectacle and can be expected to do what he can to prolong it. Perhaps President Biden who has a major distraction from the troubles at home of crime, inflation, division and malaise.
Who loses from this protracted struggle? The people of Ukraine whose country is being reduced to rubble. Its neighbors absorbing millions of refugees. Average Americans who desperately need help of their own be it the soaring cost of living and crumbling infrastructure, the unguarded southern border or unsatisfactory public educational choices. There are plenty of domestic needs being ignored, all of which could use the same resources and attention now given Ukraine.
We are wasting precious treasure and our national attention to a centuries-old struggle with little direct impact on our futures, unless it spirals to nuclear folly. Should this not be something Europe looks after, and perhaps stand up to the Russian bully? Russia’s economy is the size of Italy, it is a dying nation demographically. She does not warrant the focus and provocations the U.S. have directed towards her, and we would be best served by helping her decline slowly in a natural course. If Russia decides not to go quietly into the night, we can deal with her, but to provoke a hostile reaction prematurely is a perilous and foolish path. It’s time to sit down and end this nonsensical war to nowhere.