In its fourth month, the war in Ukraine is becoming more and more a war of attrition, crushing both Ukrainian and Russian forces, resulting in even more indiscriminate killings of civilians by Russian bombing and the destruction of the country’s infrastructure. There is now a growing chorus of Western European politicians and national security experts on the need for an immediate ceasefire, with several European governments fearing that if the fighting does not stop, the war could escalate to the point where the Russian president Putin will resort to chemical or nuclear weapons. Hence the tangible dissatisfaction, especially in France and Germany, with the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine, especially those that would allow it to turn things around in Russia and liberate the occupied territories. However, the rising fire brigade in the West also exposes a lack of strategic imagination as to what Europe might look like if Kyiv had enough weapons and support to defeat the Russian army on the ground. This lack of imagination, more than any other factor, explains the restrained trajectory of French and German support for Ukraine, which allows Kyiv to continue to fight but does not offer a clear path to victory. There are similar voices in the United States arguing that supporting Ukraine reduces domestic priorities. While other well-meaning critics of US support for Ukraine say that we are only prolonging its pain and that the difference in power between the two warring countries ultimately means that there can only be one Russian victory. But in reality, this whole debate is steeped in the remnants of the Cold War era, with the Russian Federation seen as an extension of the former Soviet Union in terms of its military capabilities. This “do not swallow the bear” mentality reflects the West’s growing fear of Russia, which in turn has created a strong impetus for self-suspension, especially now that the last three decades of de facto disarmament have left much to be desired. of Europe with no real military capabilities to exploit in a crisis. Thus, we are witnessing endless second speculations as to which weapons should not be sent to Ukraine to ensure that our aid is not considered “escalating”. Over the past three months, however, the West, and especially the United States, has steadily increased its military aid to Ukraine, making Russia pay dearly for Putin’s nonsense. And the structure of the latest US aid package is a recognition that this is a long, protracted war. However, until the Ukrainians have sufficient capabilities to suppress Russian long-range artillery and missiles, this will remain an unfair struggle, with a predictable end. Putin’s forces will continue to move forward – now holding a corridor along the Black Sea in southern Ukraine – as they slowly but relentlessly expand into Donbass. Every nation has a tipping point, and in a war of attrition like this, those with more resources and capabilities ultimately prevail. But that does not have to be the case – higher motivation, education and especially Western equipment can offset Russia’s numerical advantages. Let us first consider the consequences of Ukraine’s defeat. At this stage, any ceasefire would allow Putin to retain the occupied territories and the remaining Ukrainian state – without its industrial basin to the east and with Russia’s continued blockade of the Black Sea – could not be financially sustained. Most importantly, in a few years, Putin will reorganize, rebuild his army, and embark on another round of conquest to occupy all of Ukraine – especially if the ceasefire agreement included lifting sanctions on critical Western imports. for the production of its weapons. In such a future “third war”, would the Ukrainian people still have enough determination and vigor to retaliate and would the West be ready to re-supply the necessary weapons and supplies? There is no way to answer these questions in any substantive way, but it is reasonable to assume that having virtually lost this war, the Ukrainian nation would find its position of power further diminished. At the moment, the biggest obstacle to providing comprehensive military and financial support from the West to Ukraine is our inability to imagine a new power structure in Eastern Europe – one based on the NATO Baltic to Black Corridor. Sea. align with the US And as Finland and Sweden prepare to join NATO, Europe is on the brink of a potentially transformative geopolitical restructuring, such as at the end of World War I. Ukraine’s defense is not just about national sovereignty and territorial integrity – historically, the two fundamental principles of democratic governance – but ultimately Russia’s repulsion from Europe, ending three centuries of imperial momentum. The independence of Ukraine and consequently of Belarus – because, once Ukraine defends its sovereignty and territorial integrity, Minsk would not stay in Moscow’s orbit for long – will put an end to Russia’s claim that it is key. Eurasian power in Europe “. Therefore, for the first time in modern times, it would force Moscow to compromise on what it needs, economically and politically, to become a “normal” nation-state. At the geostrategic level, the emergence of a free, independent and prosperous Ukraine aligned with the West would also end the two-border crisis that the Sino-Russian alliance sought to create for the United States. “Alliance with the United States as vital to their security, and ready to do their part to support the defense, the US will then be free to focus on the forthcoming Indo-Pacific rivalry with China, making the so-called” ” “Pivot to Asia” debate is highly controversial. Last but not least, the defeat of the Russian army in Ukraine would pave the way for a fundamental restructuring of power distribution in Europe, shifting the center of gravity from the Franco-German series to a Central European constellation to include Germany, Poland, the Scandinavians, the Baltics and especially Ukraine. With its vast natural resources and one of the richest agricultural lands on earth, a rebuilt Ukraine — restored not as a post-Soviet state but as a thriving democratic policy and closely integrated into Europe’s economy — would fundamentally change the power of both. in Europe and worldwide. This war, imposed on Ukraine and the West by Putin’s neo-imperialist plan, has already changed Europe. He presented to the democratic West the kind of opportunity that comes only once in four or five generations – the opportunity to rebuild the geopolitical map of the continent. Let us have the courage to help Ukraine win. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, the US Department of Defense or the US Government.
