OPINION: Supporting Ukraine must remain priority number one for the United States
Danny Murnin is a junior studying journalism and assistant opinion editor for The New Political.
Please note that these views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political.
Through January and most of February 2022, I was closely following geopolitical developments in Eastern Europe, as there were widespread fears that the Russian Federation would invade Ukraine. While many simply couldn’t fathom the idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin would throw the world into chaos by launching the largest war in Europe since World War II ended in 1945, that is precisely what he did.
The reasons for why are complicated. For one, Putin is determined to counter Western influence close to Russia’s borders. During the Cold War, the U.S., Canada and several other countries in Western Europe formed a joint military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The most significant thing about NATO is Article 5 in the founding document of NATO. Article 5 carries that an attack on one member state is an attack on all member states, and will be treated as such. In other words, if a NATO country is attacked by a non-NATO country, every NATO member state will join the country that was attacked in waging war against the perpetrator.
NATO was formed in part because of concerns that the Soviet Union would seek to create a communist sphere of influence all throughout Europe. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the 14 republics besides Russia that made up the Soviet Union became independent. Over the years, former Soviet republics (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) as well as non-Soviet nations (such as Hungary, Poland and Romania) that were in the Soviet sphere of influence have joined NATO.
Putin, who started his career in Russian politics as an officer in the KGB, has lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as a major tragedy. It is no secret that Putin would love nothing more than to recreate as much of the old Soviet Union as he can, especially in Europe, or at least bring those countries under his direct influence.
Unfortunately for Putin, however, since becoming president in 2000, the vast expansion of NATO that has taken place has significantly lowered the number of viable options Moscow has to build a new sphere of influence in Europe in order to permanently maintain Russia’s status as a great power. One of those countries that has remained outside of NATO, of course, is Ukraine.
Basically, Putin and his government view controlling Ukraine as the key to halting NATO’s growing influence over Europe. All of their reasons for invading Ukraine two years ago boil down to pretty much just that. In the several months leading up to the invasion, the Russians said that they wanted NATO to commit to stop sending personnel and resources to the European nations that were formerly part of the Soviet Union or under its sphere of influence.
So that has brought us to where we are now, more than two years removed from the Russian Federation beginning this campaign to exert control over a free, sovereign nation. In the lead-up to the war and within the first several days of it, few thought Ukraine could win. It just didn’t seem feasible when considering Russia’s military advantage in every single category Ukraine would be able to resist one of the most powerful countries on Earth for very long.
Ukraine has resisted, however, and resisted well at that. Ukraine has recaptured 54 percent of the territory taken by Russia in the first months of the war. This leaves Russia in control of less than 20 percent of Ukraine after two years of fighting, which Moscow certainly did not expect. To make matters worse, Russia’s failure to quickly win the war as many initially expected has also come at a staggering human cost for them. While Ukrainian losses are immense, with as many as 70,000 dead and 120,000 wounded, Russian losses are astronomical. As many as 120,000 soldiers have been killed and as many as 180,000 have been wounded since the invasion began. Declassified U.S. intelligence released in December estimated total Russian casualties at 315,000, as well as over 2,000 tanks and a third of their armored vehicle force destroyed.
Ukraine’s success at preserving their own sovereignty is due in large part to financial assistance from the United States, who has sent $75 billion in total aid to Ukraine since the start of the war, with over $40 billion of it being military aid. As long as that aid keeps coming, Russia will have an extremely difficult time winning the war outright, and the casualties will continue to mount. It is a good deal for the United States. We help defend a free, sovereign, pro-American country from a barbaric invasion launched by one of our biggest enemies, significantly degrading the military capabilities of the enemy country, all without any American deaths.
Without new aid, however, which hasn’t been passed in a year, Ukraine won’t be able to hold on considering Russia’s major manpower advantage. Russia will eventually be able to turn its dreams into reality. Fedor Krashinnikov at the Wilson Center writes Russian victory in Ukraine would mean “Putin’s Russia would be the leader of a bloc of dependent states and thus an even more attractive partner for China and many other authoritarian and anti-Western regimes. The West’s defeat in Ukraine would have lasting consequences for the world economy and politics and would undermine the Western powers in both military and political senses.”
Fortunately for Russia, the Republican Party and voters in the United States are both stepping up in big ways to be “useful idiots” for Moscow, at the detriment of Ukraine, and the rest of the world. While the Democratic-controlled Senate did the right thing in February and passed $60 billion in new funding for Ukraine as part of a massive defense bill that also included funding for Israel and Taiwan, there is no guarantee that the Republican-controlled House will do anything with it or any other bill that includes funding for Ukraine. Reasons why include a general distaste most House Republicans have for large spending bills, a desire to see substantial changes to U.S. immigration policy as part of the package, feelings that Ukraine is undeserving of U.S. aid for whatever reason, and a belief that Ukraine cannot win the war.
Perhaps even more exciting for Moscow is the prospect that their favorite former U.S. president, Donald Trump, will be given four more years in the White House by voters this November. Polls show he is favored to make President Joe Biden a one-term president, and Trump would almost certainly lend Ukraine no help at all, at best demanding a negotiated settlement to the war with some favorable outcomes for Russia, and, at worst, letting Russia do whatever they want. If Trump is elected, it would mean that the geopolitical effects in Europe start to go beyond Ukraine. It is a very real possibility that if Russia wins in Ukraine, they may invade a NATO member a few years after. Trump has outright said he would have no problems with Russia doing so, a stunningly brazen and dangerous statement even for him. It is no surprise Russia is seeking to meddle in this year’s election, again, to turn voters against Ukraine.
While the sheer number of European countries in NATO may seem daunting for Russia should they attack a member state, thus invoking Article 5, it is worth remembering that 70% of the total defense spending by all NATO members is from the U.S. A Russian invasion of a NATO member state would have utterly catastrophic consequences, which is why some in Europe, such as French President Emmanuel Macon, aren’t ruling out eventually sending troops to Ukraine to make sure that things never reach that point.
Ukraine must win this war, and Russia must be defeated. Americans should be able to agree on that, and understand that if Russia wins in Ukraine, the consequences will stretch far, far beyond Ukraine’s borders. Vladimir Putin is a murderous madman who routinely has his political opponents killed, aids and abets dictators who use chemical weapons to massacre children, runs his own country under an authoritarian, iron first, and is now waging a brutal war in Ukraine where the official civilian death toll is over 10,000, but is likely much, much higher. He must be stopped, preferably by continuing to fund and arm Ukraine.
I should stress, however, that we are talking about the safety and security of Europe and the world at large. We are talking about the future. Regardless of if new funding is passed for Ukraine, if the war eventually reaches a dire enough point for Ukraine, then all options must be on the table, and I mean all.
Please note that these views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political.
