GUEST POSTS AND OP-EDs

 How much longer will Ukrainians continue to be “sacrificed to barbarians,  whose only honor is atrocity”? (Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1984 film) 

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine much has gone well. Russia’s plans have been largely foiled. Despite expending huge amounts of equipment and ammunition as well as large numbers of soldiers, Russia has faced stalemate following major defeats on the battlefield. 

Yet the war’s ending remains unclear. Ukraine’s major Western partners declare that they will support Ukraine “as long as it takes”, but they avoid elaborating what precisely “it” is. This is because the West, the US administration in particular, has succumbed to the only tactic deployed by Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, that has been successful, namely, deterring faster and more forceful Western military aid to Ukraine because of possible escalation, including as a result of Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons. 

There are many in the West who would simply prefer the war to stop and this desire is understandable. Sometimes the expression of such views starts with the phrase that “all wars end in negotiations,” even though this is not true. The adherents of what might be termed “stop the war, just stop it” ignore the fact that negotiations are always conducted in a given context and are subject to that context. Results on the battlefield decide the results of negotiations. Some simply fail to consider motives and even the consequences of ending the war under differing conditions. Yet motives are important because they delineate the limits to which any future negotiations will be subject. And consequences are important because they determine the kind of world we will live in tomorrow. 

Obviously, this war is very important for Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. Russians, including Putin, as well as some analysts speak of Ukraine being an “existential” priority for Russia, but do Westerners fully understand what this means and its implications? 

Putin’s motives indicate that he will not stop his assault on Ukraine if he is not decisively defeated on the battlefield. He had telegraphed his intentions regarding Ukraine since at least his infamous “Munich speech” in 2007. Thereafter, he methodically made his case for what took place starting on February 24, 2022. Ukraine is not a real country. Ukrainians do not exist as a nation. The argument can be made that Putin had bided his time since coming to power in 1999, as he “learned the ropes,” including on the international level, and firmed up his authoritarian control of Russia itself. Once ready, following years of heavy investment in his military, Putin took action. 

That rhetoric of Putin which clearly makes little or no sense should be put aside. For instance, that he intends to “de-Nazify” Ukraine. Nazism in Ukraine is a fringe movement far less prominent than in a number of EU countries and Ukraine’s president has a Jewish background. That the invasion of Ukraine is a response to NATO’s enlargement is contradicted by many facts: the absence of any remotely meaningful assurances of non-enlargement as well as Russia’s past acquiescence to enlargement, particularly of the Baltic countries, which border on Russia itself. 

It should be clear to all by now that Putin’s intention is to subjugate or destroy Ukraine.  

Russian state-run news agency Ria Novosti elaborated on “denazification” as being “inevitably also de-Ukrainization” – Russia’s goal is erasing the modern state of Ukraine. All of Putin’s actions over the past year support this conclusion. Destroying entire Ukrainian cities, bombing civilian infrastructure, killing thousands of innocent civilians, these are the intentional results of a war waged based on this one purpose, to take over Ukraine, even in the form of a destroyed country. Russia has formally illegally annexed four of Ukraine’s regions, which it has not even fully occupied. All the locales which Russia occupies have been subjected to intensive propaganda that they are not Ukraine, but are, in fact, part of Russia. 

The reasons behind this purposeful intent are complex, and simple at the same time. They go back to Russia’s history as an ever-expanding imperialist country. Striving for great power status has consistently been an overriding motive for Russian governments and ordinary Russians alike. As Putin and many Russians see it, Russia cannot be a great world power without Ukraine. One hundred years ago Russia conquered Ukraine, which had declared independence in 1918. Russia lost much of its power, in the Russian view, when Ukraine renewed its independence in 1991. Thus, the failed initial blitzkrieg starting February 24, 2022 aimed at seizing Ukraine’s capital, the goal was conquest. Thereafter, Putin has continued the war as his only option, as he sees it. To end the war would be not just a defeat for Putin, it would be an admission that Russia will not be “great”. 

In a speech delivered in December 2022 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew outlined Putin and Russia’s ideology of “a Russian world,” in which “Moscow (both political power and religious) will be the center of this world, whose mission will be to fight against the decadent values of the West. This ideology is an instrument of legitimization of Russian expansionism and the basis of its Eurasian strategy.”  

Putin’s imperialist motives in seizing Ukraine are shared by the vast majority of Russians, whose support for Putin remains very high. Russia’s civic society, if that is what it can be considered, supports the war against Ukraine. Popular Russian bloggers are almost exclusively “milbloggers,” those who rant in favor of the war against Ukraine. 

Russian volunteers gather funds for equipment for Russian soldiers sent to Ukraine. The wives of Russian soldiers complain not that their husbands are being sent to fight – and die – in a foreign country, but that they are not properly equipped or trained to kill Ukrainians. In international competitions Russian athletes pose with the “Z” logo, symbolizing Russian forces fighting in Ukraine, and Russian singers glorify the war. The Russian public is firmly behind Putin and the war against Ukraine. Comprehending Russians’ and Putin’s intentions in this war is critical to setting a course intended to eventually end this war. What history and intent mean is that there is no alternative for Putin other than to continue this war. And this means that Putin will not stop his assault on Ukraine unless he is completely defeated on the battlefield. Yet some Western leaders, including those most important to Ukraine’s further military successes, appear to lack understanding of this simple circumstance. 

The US is by far the largest contributor to Ukraine’s war effort. Despite providing military assistance without which an independent Ukraine would probably not exist today, military support from the U.S. has been gradual, in fits and starts. It has taken over a year to provide Ukraine with main battle tanks, a basic and essential component to the land war being fought on Ukraine’s territory. Currently, the topic of providing fairly modern fighter jets is off the table. In one interview, Germany's chancellor said that it “seemed frivolous” to discuss sending other military aid to Ukraine when they had just committed to sending Leopard 2 tanks. Key Western leaders appear intent on continuing to pursue a piecemeal and gradualist approach to aiding Ukraine militarily. 

Though not all of Ukraine’s friends adhere to the gradualist approach. Those countries with the closest experience of Russian hegemony are adamant that Ukraine must be given all the equipment it needs to win this war. Poland's Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau has said: “Arming Ukraine in order to repel the Russian aggression is not some kind of decision-making exercise. Ukrainian blood is shed for real. This is the price of hesitation over Leopard deliveries. We need action, now.” 

The escalation boogeyman 

The main reason for Western hesitancy in accelerating its assistance and quickly providing Ukraine with maximum military equipment appears to be a fear of escalation. Western leaders fear direct military confrontation with Russia and its potential use of nuclear weapons. 

Some Western analysts and politicians even appear hesitant to countenance Ukraine winning this war. But the fact is that Ukraine has been winning the war for the past thirteen months. Even given limited Western military aid that has been only gradually provided, Ukraine has not just stopped Russia’s army in its tracks, it has driven it back. The gradualist approach remains in place, despite the scale and implications of Russian aggression. A general wariness bordering on fear of things worse to come has taken hold. 

Several Western leaders consider a direct war with Russia a real possibility. Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz stated to German newspaper Tagesspiegel that the NATO military alliance was not at war with Russia and that it would “not allow such an escalation”. Regarding this war France’s president Emmanuel Macron has appeared out of touch and quite possibly still remains ignorant of Putin’s motives. Macron has regularly held talks with Putin and spoken out against possible escalation. Yet just two weeks before Russia assaulted Ukraine from four directions one year ago and following six hours of talks with Putin in Moscow Macron said, “I secured an assurance there would be no deterioration or escalation.” Despite strongly supporting Ukraine's war effort overall, America’s president Joe Biden appears to share the fear of escalation expressed by Scholz and Macron. The US has provided Ukraine with very significant military aid, but has doled it out incrementally. 

Yet there is no real danger of a war between Russia and NATO. Russia will not attack NATO given its abject failure to achieve significant military success against just one non-NATO member, Ukraine. Even if Putin uses a provocation directly against a member of NATO his intent will be only to exaggerate the threat of escalation as part of his efforts to minimize Western military aid to Ukraine. 

The only real potential threat of escalation lies in Russia’s readiness to use nuclear weapons. Putin has been using this threat to deter the West from providing maximum military assistance to Ukraine. He is using every resource at his disposal in order to pursue a longer-term strategy of subjugating and destroying Ukraine, which is made easier if Western military aid is minimized. But the threat of nuclear weapons is also a bluff. 

For the same reasons that Putin will not attack NATO he will not use nuclear weapons against any NATO country. Europe and the USA are far better defended from a potential massive nuclear attack than Russia. An all-out nuclear war will cause unprecedented devastation in some Western countries, but it will end Russia’s existence, finally and completely. And that is not an outcome that Putin can countenance. 

The only real threat of escalation is that of Russia using tactical nukes on Ukraine’s territory. Yet here again there are many good reasons for Putin not to move to this stage. Militarily, the use of nukes by Russia can have only a limited effect because of the size of the battle front, which is 600 miles long. Because the two sides are so closely engaged any use of nukes on the front line will impact both armies. If radioactive fallout from a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine impacts the territory of a NATO member Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, possibly causing a direct military response from NATO such as cruise missile strikes on the Russian military in Ukraine. India’s and China’s cautious support for Russia will disappear. Any restraints to the West providing military assistance to Ukraine will also vanish. 

Putin’s only success 

Despite the hollowness of the fear of escalation, Western military support for Ukraine remains in a gradualist posture. This is the only area in which Putin has been successful. He has restrained the fast, serious military assistance to Ukraine which would end in the Russian army being driven from the territories it occupies in Ukraine. Thus far, the West has been practicing self-deterrence to a significant degree. 

In one sense, Putin is achieving his aim. Not as he planned, but his overall goal is being realized: Ukraine is being methodically destroyed, piece by piece. The West’s gradualist approach only encourages Putin, who believes he can win. He has placed Russia’s entire economy on a war footing. He counts on Western fatigue from the war to set in. Not providing military aid to Ukraine at a much faster rate prolongs the war, despite Ukraine’s soldiers having demonstrated their ability to defeat and drive back Russia’s army. 

Negotiations that end in stopping or halting the war by leaving Russian troops on Ukraine’s territory will also only prolong the war, with even more disastrous consequences. Any pause in the war will only be used by Russia to regroup and attack Ukraine with even greater efficacy. This conclusion is shared by those peoples, the Balts, the Poles, who have the best understanding of the Russian mindset, which goes back to Russia’s history and Russian motives. 

A prolonged war in which gradualist Western military aid allows Russia to continually increase its military strength and effectiveness is dangerous, because it keeps open the possibility of Russia winning, by occupying or destroying Ukraine or large parts of it. 

Escalation is assured if Ukraine does not win this war. Russia has made threatening noises aimed at Moldova (in which Russia already maintains troops in the Transnistria region), the Baltic states and Poland. Belief in a negotiated peace without Ukraine’s victory in the form of freeing up its territory runs counter to all the facts taking place over the past year and plays into Putin’s hands and his intention to press on until he wins. 

How much longer “too little, too late?” 

Despite Ukraine’s major successes on the battlefield, Russia's lack of real leverage over the West and the very significant potential upside to a complete Ukrainian victory, the major Western powers continue to pursue an approach of only gradually providing military aid to Ukraine. Tobias Ellwood, a British MP and former soldier, said: “I actually find it baffling myself in this day and age that we can watch an entire country, a European democracy, be attacked day in and day out. Yet with the immense superior firepower at our disposal, we're still not willing to give Ukraine the kit, the hardware that it needs.” 

The former commander of Poland’s land forces, General Waldemar Skrzypchak, said in an interview for the BBC: “The aid which Ukraine receives now from international partners is insufficient. It is similar to when a doctor gives only several drops of medicine to a sick person, instead of providing full medication. It should be several times greater.” 

Some key Western leaders and politicians grasp that the gradualist approach is wrong and have spoken out in favor of accelerating military support for Ukraine. 

Britain’s Prime Minister has the right idea. Rishi Sunak has spoken out in favor of moving faster in arming its Ukraine's military: “This must be our priority now. Instead of an incrementalist approach, we need to move faster on artillery, armour, and air defence.” 

US Congressional leaders also have the right idea. In a joint statement, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence stated: “President Biden needs to stop dragging his feet on providing the lethal aid necessary to end this war. Continued halfmeasures by the Biden administration will only drive up the cost of this war in lives and dollars.”

 Past time to finish this 

The gradualist approach has outlived its usefulness, if there was any, a long time ago. The US and Europe must switch to being “in it, to win it.” The war in Ukraine is an opportunity, presented by Putin’s rashness and Ukrainians’ bravery, to resolve Russia as a threat forever. 

Firstly, the war has been cheap. “US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment,” writes economist Timothy Ash. 

Secondly, no foreign troops, other than a small number of volunteers, have been engaged and Ukrainians bear the burden of lost and irreparably injured lives. 

Thirdly, Russia losing this war opens the door to serious change within Russia itself. The problem is the Russians’ appetite for this war. So long as it stays strong, the war will continue. Putin’s own resolve, by all accounts, will not waver in any event. But in the event of Russia’s defeat Putin’s image as a strongman, one of the key factors sustaining his popularity, will be severely undermined, if not abolished. Russians will have to face the questions of “What was this all for?” 

Finally, definitively assuring that unwarranted aggression on the world stage will not be left unpunished confirms the relatively stable world security order established after World War II. As NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has said: “The price we pay is in money. While the price the Ukrainians pay is in blood. If authoritarian regimes see that force is rewarded we will all pay a much higher price. And the world will become a more dangerous world for all of us.” Accelerating aid to Ukraine and allowing it to win this war eliminates one of the principal threats to this order, which will allow another major threat, that posed by China, to become the major focus of the West’s efforts to ensure stability and peace. Helping Ukraine to defeat Russia will free up resources to face the rising threat from China. And, on the contrary, if Russia is not defeated completely in Ukraine, the West will be forced to continue to contend with two major challenges across the globe simultaneously. 

Small wonder that China is looking closely at the war in Ukraine and is providing limited support to Russia. The West’s gradualism is advantageous to China, which would not only be encouraged by letting Russia get away with its invasion and occupation of Ukraine, but would like nothing better than for the transatlantic alliance to continue to be forced into a sustained defensive posture in Europe, guarding against a potential threat from a resurgent Russia. The war in Ukraine has already exerted a sobering effect on China. As CIA Director Bill Burns stated in an interview for CBS: “President Xi and his military leadership have doubts today about whether they could accomplish that invasion [of Taiwan]. I think, as they’ve looked at Putin’s experience in Ukraine, that’s probably reinforced some of those doubts as well.” 

Accelerate military aid, now 

It is still not too late to avoid a legacy of too little, too late. In order to hasten the end of Russia’s war against Ukraine, the US and its Western allies should do the following: 

• first and foremost, the American administration must change its approach by preparing and implementing an “acceleration schedule,” which foresees continually faster and increased arms supplies to Ukraine, according to a tight schedule and an elevated acceleration timeline, supplying arms at a faster and faster pace, 
• “let loose the land-lease” - Ukraine’s very survival is at stake and future returns of leased equipment should be the least of the country’s worries, thus President Joe Biden should begin using his land-lease authority to send as much equipment to Ukraine as soon as possible, with Ukraine’s very survival at stake, and Ukrainians dying every day, this is not the time to prioritize future monetary savings. 
• Europeans should plan for and schedule the provision of many more modern tanks than the odd-100 Leopard tanks currently pledged, also at a maximally increased pace of supply, 
• the USA should even more drastically step up production of ammunition, weapons, vehicles and spare parts and convince NATO allies in Europe to do likewise, increase industrial capacity for ammunition and equipment at “hyper velocity” by planning and building using extreme emergency level timetables, 
• the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, also known as the “Rammstein group”, should:  

1. very quickly transfer to Ukraine everything which is “left over” in Western arsenals, all possible military kit will find its use on this battlefield, it’s simply wrong for Ukrainians to scrounge for civilian vehicles to be used on the front lines when so many armored vehicles are languishing in Western warehouses, 
2. create, together with Ukraine, industrial capacity for quickly manufacturing long-range loitering munitions drones that will serve as a deterrent to Russia’s possible use of nuclear weapons. 

Only two alternatives exist to an accelerating and accelerated timetable for military support for Ukraine: a) allowing the war to drag on as Russia beefs up its military with new recruits and its military industrial complex grinds on, b) allow Russia to overcome Ukraine. 

Procrastination in providing Ukraine with all the weapons available as per a greatly accelerated schedule only encourages Putin to believe he can win this war. The elaborate baroque dance of “First say no,” then “Say maybe,” then “Let the Poles or the Brits commit first,” then “Okay, okay” being practiced thus far is only maximizing Ukrainian losses and encouraging the Russians. Putin has accelerated his demands from the Russian economy, which he expects to deliver masses of newly produced weapons and ammunition. He is scouring abroad for ammunition and arms from the likes of Iran and North Korea. So long as Russian forces are not decisively defeated further his efforts to mobilize hundreds of thousands of new recruits will achieve their aim. 

Because of an unnecessarily slow gradualist approach, the West and the US in particular are allowing Russia time to re-arm, to produce new weapons and ammunition, Russian forces on the ground to get better at killing Ukrainian soldiers and the devastation caused to Ukraine’s infrastructure to continue apace. 

Overkill, so to speak, on supplying arms to Ukraine is not realistically possible. Even if peace were achieved tomorrow, Ukraine will need a very strong army to deter future invasions. Meantime, there is a view, slowly gaining traction in Ukraine, that Ukraine is being hung out to dry, by being given enough arms to prevent Russia from overrunning the country, but not enough to seriously reduce what are apparently very high Ukrainian casualty rates or to win the war by freeing all of the occupied territories. 

It is almost exclusively Ukrainians who are dying in this war with the Russian army, which reinforces Western sentiment that “this is not our war,” in turn increasing fatigue in the West, which Putin is counting on. The status quo has outlived its usefulness, if ever it possessed this quality. 

“Much more, much faster” should become the Biden administration new approach, with the Europeans following suit. This change in approach will assure Ukraine’s victory on the battlefields of eastern and southern Ukraine. 

For their part, given the losses and destruction already caused by Russia, Ukrainians cannot, and will not, stop. 

Silene Fredriksz lost her 23-year-old son, Bryce, when the Russians shot down flight MH17 over Ukraine. She says, “It was heartbreaking for us.” She is convinced this war could have been avoided back in 2014. “Putin has never been stopped, and still has not been stopped. And he will not stop until he is stopped,” Silene said. The West must, finally, step up to stop Putin and his war machine. 

Ivan Lozowy is a lecturer at the Kyiv-Mohyla Business School and a former volunteer in the “Aidar” battalion in 2014. He is now a volunteer iwth the 93rd Brigade of Ukraine's Armed Forces