In Newsweek Dan Caldwell and Sumantra Maitra make a plea to the incoming House majority to use the power of the purse to rectify U. S. policy with respect to the war in Ukraine:
The House members should use the appropriations and oversight powers delegated to them by the Constitution to force a course correction for America’s Ukraine policy. They should enact a more realistic policy that recognizes the limited American interests at stake in Ukraine and prioritizes more urgent needs at home and abroad. America’s future should not be gambled away on a potential nuclear exchange over who controls the Donbas and Crimea—two regions that have repeatedly changed hands from one nation to another.
The status quo is unsustainable. The war is currently an attritional conflict where neither side appears to have a path to decisive victory. Russia and Ukraine are estimated to have suffered 100,000 casualties each. While Russia is clearly unable to conquer the entirety of Ukraine, it is also unlikely that Ukraine will be able to completely expel Russian troops from the Donbas or Crimea without increased Western support that carries the risk of nuclear escalation.
Okay, I’ll bite. What’s the U. S. interest?
I do not believe that Ukraine can accomplish its goals by any measure short of dismembering Russia into a dozen or more little statelets, none large enough to pose a threat. Furthermore, I don’t believe that is in the U. S. interest. Is it possible for us to pursue Ukrainian interests and American ones concurrently?
IMO that’s what we’re trying to do and its consequences are the “attritional conflict” mentioned by the authors.
“the limited American interests at stake in Ukraine”
The authors disregard the “sunk cost” interest.
Due to the increasing commitment and resources to the war, the more it is required that the US “wins”.
Of course the same goes for the Russians.
Caldwell and Maitre make a fundamental mistake. The war is being fought for the personal interests of the neocons who control our foreign policy. Those people happen to be virulent Russophobes who have no interest whatever in the US, except as a tool to implement their delusions.
The US has no interest in Taiwan, either. Again, it is the self interest of certain individuals and corporations that is being pursued.
The US interest is in preventing Russia from dominating Ukraine. We are actually pretty consistent about that as a foreign policy principle, except that we exclude ourselves from that principle whenever it’s convenient because we can. Whether that should be a US interest is another question entirely.
To me, Ukraine policy is primarily being driven at this point by domestic partisan politics. The Putin-hating left has allied with the blob to support Ukraine almost unconditionally, and the Trumpy Putin-friendly right has allied with the Libertarian non-interventionists to oppose the US doing much of anything.
Cynical and realist me thinks we do need to keep Russia from taking over Ukraine, but we also don’t want Ukraine to win decisively enough to, for example, take Crimea. The long-term goal for the US, IMO, is to get to a stable, peaceful, and durable situation between Ukraine and Russia. For that to happen, both sides need to fight to exhaustion, or until they are willing to negotiate away from their maximalist objectives. The key questions will obviously revolve around NATO membership and territorial control.
No one did anything when the Russians invaded and took over Crimea. Everyone assumed it would end there. They were wrong. Its now pretty clear that Russia has few limits on how it thinks it should be able to use military power to control any territory it wishes, over the rights of other sovereign countries. We have a history of helping other countries to help them from being invaded and taken over by other countries. I am OK with that. Sometimes you need to do the morally correct thing.
I would argue that support from the left has not been unconditional. We have specifically avoided giving Ukraine weapons that could easily be used in an offensive against Russia like the longer range HIMARS and careful about aircraft. To the best of my knowledge we arent giving them cruise missiles or MRBMs. We arent sending front line troops to fight with them.
Steve
The U.S. provides 50% of Ukraine’s GDP. Is that our responsibility? The U.S. is supplying state-of-the-art military weaponry for Ukraine’s battle with Russia, while China is edging towards some kind of aggressive action towards Taiwan. For example the Pentagon is now sending sophisticated striker combat vehicles to Ukraine. Is it prudent to be depleting our own arsenal and equipment during such volatile times?
However, Zelensky only wants more – more armaments to fight Russia with, more money to fund their pensions and rebuild the infrastructure that has been needlessly destroyed. Is their any end in sight in what we won’t do or spend in Ukraine, especially in lieu of ignoring so many problems of our own? Furthermore, where is our moral compass in leaving our southern border wide open, as millions of unvetted people cross over and spread across the country?
“I would argue that support from the left has not been unconditional. We have specifically avoided giving Ukraine weapons that could easily be used in an offensive against Russia…”
That’s because the Biden administration isn’t stupid and isn’t listening to know-nothings who desire to give Ukraine the ability to decisively crush Russia.
“No one did anything when the Russians invaded and took over Crimea. Everyone assumed it would end there. They were wrong.”
Not everyone.
The mistake is that “everyone” did not understand Russia’s motivations and strategic situation and ignored those of us who understood that a conflict regarding the status of Ukraine was inevitable as long as the US pushed for Ukraine to be aligned with the EU and NATO, which is exactly what happened.
“However, Zelensky only wants more – more armaments to fight Russia with, more money to fund their pensions and rebuild the infrastructure that has been needlessly destroyed. Is their any end in sight in what we won’t do or spend in Ukraine, especially in lieu of ignoring so many problems of our own? ”
Of course Zelensky wants more – he needs it to fight the invasion of his country and if he doesn’t get it, Ukraine will probably lose.
What specific problems would no longer be “ignored” if we stopped supporting Ukraine?
But I think your question raises an important point. This kind of war is incredibly destructive and consuming of people and material. The west (not just the US) is on track to put 180 billion into Ukraine by the war start anniversary, the equivalent of the entire GDP of Kuwait. Sustaining that for long is questionable.
This is leaving aside the military ammunition and equipment needed. I’ve noted before here that the entire US can only produce 2-3 days’ worth of artillery shells used in Ukraine. It’s the same with most other stuff.
Russia did not invade Crimea. They had a large military contingent there by treaty. Whatever the legality of the referendum, Crimea is overwhelmingly ethnic Russian and it accurately reflected their wishes, Do you remember Kosovo?
Moreover, the current war started when the US staged a coup that removed Ukraine’s only democratically elected, legitimate government and that installed the current Nazi junta.
Several weeks ago there a post with skepticism on whether the US / NATO would provide Ukraine with tanks and/or train Ukrainians in combined arms.
The US has announced its giving Bradley light tanks and practically confirmed UK and Germany will give a substantial portion of their operational tanks.
But I will posit that tanks won’t be enough to break the stalemate. Ukraine will demand the last “arm” of combined arms — which is air superiority. So western aircraft, a substantial portion of US drones or even a no-fly zone is in sight if things don’t change.
Escalation is the name of the game for a long while yet.
What needs to be pointed out is that Ukrainian interests and American interests are not perfectly aligned. Both President Zelenskyy and President Biden have made that very clear. That means we will not give them everything they want and for them to accomplish their goals they need things we won’t give them. Either they’re lying, mistaken, or they won’t accomplish their goals.
I think it’s the latter and we should take that into account. What will we settle for short of a complete Ukrainian victory?
Bob:
Whether the U. S. government was actually involved in the putsch that installed the present Ukrainian government is open to debate but what is an established fact is that Americans were involved in it.
Why are we all in supporting Zelensky?
Why is there such a desire by the establishment to not only pander to this guy but create a celebrity image around him?
Recently Zelensky was carted over here for a speech delivered to Congress. Now he will be speaking at the Golden Globes – all in an effort to keep alive an empathetic interest in his cause, squeezing more funds and military equipment out of the U.S. And yet, here is a guy who has approached China for help, banned the Ukrainian Church, jailed political rivals and political parties, signed laws expanding state control over media groups, journalists, and essentially free speech. For all our accelerated involvement in what is essentially a foreign border dispute, it has been estimated a quarter million people (on both sides) have lost their lives, along with little clarity as to where this “war†is going, or perimeters as to when it will end.
Finally, who are we really helping with all our “help?â€