The passage of the large military aid package for Ukraine gives a huge boost to that beleaguered nation’s ability to hold off the Russian assault. Even Russian outlets are acknowledging this.
However, the aid boost may be giving rise to another round of overpromising. Consider this Washington Post op-ed by Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.
He lays out a scenario in which Ukraine pushes its forces through Russian lines in the Zaporizhzhia region (call it “Triple Z” for short) and from there moves to the Sea of Azov, thereby depriving Russian forces farther west in Crimea and Kherson of logistical support and reinforcements. “If Ukraine could then force a surrender, it could reclaim about half the territory that Russia now holds,” says O’Hanlon.
Sounds good to me. But so did all the talk, not that long ago, of a big, successful Ukrainian counteroffensive.
O’Hanlon distinguishes the failure of that counteroffensive from the latest plan by noting that this time, the focus would be on one place, as opposed to several fronts. That’s a distinction. Would it make a difference? I don’t know. Neither does O’Hanlon.
What I think I know is that O’Hanlon and whoever is feeding him the breakthrough scenario should probably stop talking about it. Why? Because if it fails to materialize, the failure will be held against Ukraine and its American supporters by the Tucker Carlson/no more “endless wars” crowd (which, sadly, includes a substantial chunk of Republican lawmakers).
The argument will be that Ukraine and its backers have been making false claims about Ukraine’s ability quickly to defeat Russia when, in reality, we’re just throwing money into a bottomless pit of corruption and slaughter. The renewed plausibility of that claim will make it difficult to gain approval for future aid packages.
And make no mistake. Ukraine will very likely need more U.S. aid not too far down the road.
At the same time, it’s easy to understand why Ukraine and its backers are overpromising. One of the arguments made against U.S. aid to Ukraine is that there’s no prospect of a victory in the near future. Where’s the strategy that will win the war, critics demand to know.
Naturally, supporters of aid for Ukraine feel the need to answer this demand. The result? Overpromising.
But the question is misguided. Sure, routing the Russians in the next 12 months, say, would be wonderful — a huge win for Ukraine, for the U.S., and for anyone who understands the threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
But this scenario is unrealistic. Russia has too much manpower, too much weaponry (some of it supplied by other U.S. enemies), and a leader too determined and too frightened of the consequences for him of retreating from Ukraine to be routed on the battlefield anytime soon.
What’s realistic, if Ukraine gets the military aid it needs, is a reversal of the current state of play, in which Russia is gaining the upper hand. What’s realistic is, in essence, a stalemate in which Russian casualties pile up and Russia weaponry is depleted.
This scenario would be a victory for the U.S., though not the ideal kind of victory. Putin would be humiliated by his failure to overpower Ukraine and he would be unable to attack other neighbors. The Russian military would be diminished and China, seeing Western resolve, would be less likely to attack Taiwan. Finally, of course, an ally of the U.S., and a democratic one to boot, would remain unconquered.
From Ukraine’s point of view, this scenario is far less appealing. Its horrible suffering would continue for years.
But if Ukraine is willing to bear this burden without asking any more from the U.S. than money and weapons, much of which will be spent/produced here in America, we should not balk. Rather, we should take this opportunity to bog Russia down in an “endless war.”
The war won’t really be endless. Russia and Ukraine will eventually exhaust themselves, though it would be foolish to predict when, and the U.S. will eventually be able to broker a peace deal. Ukraine will likely have to settle for the permanent loss of Crimea.
But without U.S. aid, Ukraine will likely be swallowed by Russia. Or, in a best case scenario, it would lose a huge amount of territory, with Russia poised to swallow the rest of Ukraine and attack other nearby nations, at a time of its choosing.
The humiliation won’t be Putin’s, it will be ours and Western Europe’s. Victory will belong to Putin and his anti-Western coalition of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Accordingly, that coalition will be emboldened.
The promise of avoiding this result should be reason enough to support aid to Ukraine. Promising more shouldn’t be necessary, and is counter-productive in any event.
I agree with you. And the reason is that support for Ukraine must not be contingent on a particular result in a particular amount of time. This is a war begun by an invasion of one sovereign country of another. The invader happens to be a strategic foe of the United States. The United States has a strong national interest in Russia not securing a victory from its aggression and a strong national interest in seeing a Russian strategic defeat. That is the reason we are aiding Ukraine. And it does not change if Ukraine fails in this battle or that battle. The interest remains.