“Ukrainian valor + the resolve of Ukraine’s allies = Ukrainian victory.”
Tying Ukraine’s Hands Leads to Stalemate
By Chuck Warren
Historian Stephen Kotkin has observed that the formula for the Ukraine War is:
“Ukrainian valor + the resolve of Ukraine’s allies = Ukrainian victory.”
Ukrainian valor persists, but the resolve of its most important ally, the United States, is gradually diminishing. Recently, the administration of President Joe Biden leaked that it has raised the topic of peace talks with the Ukrainian government, talks that will necessarily require the dismemberment of Ukraine.
Many in the commentariat are also advocating for the idea. Friend of Breaking Battlegrounds, Washington Post columnist Jason Willick, cited former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley, that the war is “not winnable anymore, militarily.” Therefore, Willick advised that peace talks should be undertaken, adding that America “should never recognize Putin’s illicit conquests,” but it is necessary to end the war to avoid a nuclear war, and that Vladimir Putin is mortal, and his death will provide Ukraine to retake its territory.
There are several problems with this line of thinking.
First and foremost, Ukraine isn’t simply fighting for land. There are millions of Ukrainian citizens whom President Volodymyr Zelensky and the rest of his government have an obligation to rescue them from Russian tyranny. Putting the war in the context of territory ignores the people who occupy it.
Second, nobody wants a nuclear war, and this includes Putin and the rest of the Russian government. Despite all the chest bumping, at his most desperate moments during the war, Putin never came close to initiating a nuclear attack. There is a simple reason to it: Using a nuke against Ukraine won’t advance his military objectives, and Ukrainians have prepared for such an attack psychologically and will not surrender because of it. More to the point, if it is a risk for Ukraine to be attacked by a nuclear weapon, it is the Ukrainians’ imperative to accept that risk, which they have done.
Another point worth considering, Putin will never attack a NATO member, especially the United States, with or without a nuclear weapon because he knows that it will bring the end of him. If he orders such an attack, the Russian military probably won’t carry it out. They are willing to carry Putin’s orders if they and their families aren’t paying any price for it and expanding the war to NATO will mean that they and their families will have to face the consequences. If Putin gives such an order, it is likely that his subordinates will execute him before they execute his order.
Those who use the anxieties caused by the prospects of a nuclear war to justify forcing Ukraine to accept defeat ignore the fact that we have not even come close to this possibility, for good reasons, and those reasons have not changed.
Third, Putin is mortal, but there doesn’t seem to be any hope for a democratic transition that would result in Russia giving back Ukraine its territory and people. Quite the opposite. Allowing Russia to win this war—and the dismemberment of Ukraine will be a Russian victory—will only tell Russians that Putinism works and prevent a reckoning among Russians. To force that reckoning, it is imperative that Ukraine wins, and Russia is humiliated, so the Russian people realize that Putinism dishonors their nation by turning them into a defeated nation.
Fourth, despite Milley’s statement, there is indeed a militarily winnable path for Ukraine. It’s just that the administration has refused to provide Ukraine with that path. General Ben Hodges, the former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, says that Ukrainians are fighting under conditions that he would never allow his units to fight under. Specifically, Ukrainians have been fighting without air support—as a reminder, the Afghan army collapsed immediately after Biden stopped providing them with air support. This is because, despite requests, Biden has not provided them with fighters and long-range artillery.
In the initial stage of the war, Ukrainians requested American fighter jets, but they were rebuked because, according to the administration, they didn’t need them at the time, and it would take months for them to learn how to operate them. Well, they need it now and if the administration had trained them on American fighters, then, now that they need it, they would be able to operate them. Similarly, the Ukrainians have been begging for Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), a long-range battlefield artillery missile. Only after a year, the administration agreed to provide them, and even then, shorter-range missiles and in small numbers. Additionally, while the Russians are allowed to fight in Ukraine, the administration has barred the Ukrainians from attacking Russian supply lines in Russia. Simply put, the administration has tied Ukraine’s hand behind its back and argues that there is no military path to victory.
That the war is a stalemate is true, but this shouldn’t mean that it will have to remain a stalemate. Rarely in history the trajectory of a war has been linear. Certainly, this war has not followed a linear path. When it first started, the Russians easily conquered eastern and southern Ukraine. Soon after, it looked like the Ukrainians were unstoppable. Now, it looks like a stalemate. Provided with their military needs, Ukrainians can take back what is theirs and liberate their citizens. Furthermore, the administration needs to reconsider the limits it has forced on Ukraine, especially preventing it from attack Russian supply lines in Russia—a limit America would never put on itself. This is not an outrageous view, and even Secretary of State Antony Blinken has argued it.
Congress is possibly approving a major aid package to Ukraine, and tanks, F-16s, and ATACMS are slowly arriving. Ukraine’s allies in Europe have finally scaled up their aid packages, for the first time exceeding what the United sends to Ukraine. There will be a pause in the coming months because of the weather. Between now and the spring, the United States and the rest of Ukraine’s allies must prepare Ukraine militarily for the spring counteroffensive.
There is a tendency among Americans to argue for their preferred policy and excuse it by saying “this is what’s best for that country.” Those in the administration and the press who are promoting peace talks also excuse it by claiming that Ukrainians are too tired to keep fighting, and this is the best deal they can get. But will Americans listen to foreigners to determine what’s best for us? Never! And rightly so. Ukrainians understand their country much better than we do, and Ukrainian leaders understand the Ukrainian people and their capacity to keep fighting far better than an American ever could. If they believe that it is in their interest to keep fighting, then we should defer to them for what is in their interest.
Americans should consider our own interest. Russia is our second greatest enemy, following China and Iran, and is a major partner of China. America has spent less than 5 percent of the Pentagon’s budget to destroy more than half of Russian military power. That’s as good an investment as you’ll ever get. We need to focus on China in the long term. If we allow the Ukrainians to continue to destroy the Russian military, we won’t have to be distracted by Russia for decades to come and rid ourselves of our second greatest enemy. Additionally, it would be a major political defeat for China too if it could no longer rely on Russia against us.
Note: the opinions expressed herein are those of Chuck Warren only and not his co-host Sam Stone or Breaking Battlegrounds’ staff.