The American Case For Helping Ukraine
Vladimir Putin's alarming intentions for a new world order cannot be allowed to materialize.
Ukraine's ongoing counteroffensive is not yielding the triumphant decisive victory that many in Washington had perhaps overly anticipated. They have achieved incredible successes, such as the recent crippling of Russia's Olenegorsky Gornyak, a landing ship, their liberation of 14 settlements in Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia, and their victory in the Kherson counteroffensive last fall. Nevertheless, the slow pace of the offensive should serve as a wake-up call for Washington that our current amount of aid is insufficient.
Yet an alarming segment of the populace sees it differently. A recent CNN poll conducted this summer presents a concerning picture. 55% of the populace has voiced support for halting the authorization of fresh military aid to Kyiv. Shocking to me is that many Republicans exhibit a tilt toward cutting off aid, marking a disquieting low for the party of Reagan.
A resounding 71% of Republicans have thrown their support behind the cessation of weapons delivery. In stark contrast, the Democratic contingent, by a substantial margin, advocates for the contrary stance, with 62% favoring an increase in aid to Ukraine.1 The disheartening revelations of this poll highlight a sad truth; within the country, there is a disturbing inclination to forsake allies, who are staking their lives on the line in a struggle to preserve democracy, their culture, and very existence.
This shift emerges at what ideally would be a moment of triumph, as Ukrainian forces are inching closer to evicting Russian occupiers from territories they had captured early on. The prospect of being abandoned is a dispiriting one that threatens to cast a pall over the morale of a brave army and nation that has demonstrated incredible resilience for the last nineteen months.
Amongst Republicans, the impetus behind their reluctance to continue supporting Ukraine can be traced back to the prevailing indifference of the party's standard-bearer, Donald Trump. His isolationist doctrine of 'America First' champions expedient, optics-driven solutions over robust and strategic foreign policy. A conspicuous illustration of this approach was the abandonment of the Kurds—an action that amounted to a geopolitical boon for Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad.
US troops departed en masse, paving the way for a Turkish incursion, as the Turks ultimately employed American-made F16 fighter jets to devastating effect in the subsequent massacre of Kurdish allies. Mr. Trump’s previous reservations regarding our international commitments, his suspicious affinity for foreign dictators, and his palpable disinterest in nurturing our alliances have steered a vast portion of the Republican party back toward the bygone tradition of isolationism.
One cannot help but invoke images of a not-too-distant past when the Republican party championed isolationist policies during the late 1930s and 1940s. Republicans vociferously opposed President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s resolute commitment to aiding the United Kingdom during its ‘darkest hour’ and dismissed the imperative of defeating Adolf Hitler as irrelevant to American interests.
How many lives could have been saved if America had taken a more aggressive posture during World War II? Six million Jews lost their lives as a result of Hitler’s barbaric genocide. Ill-fated isolationism must never again become the US or Republican party's foreign policy.
The Democrats, too, are responsible for the current situation in Ukraine. President Biden's unwavering animosity towards U.S. oil producers has fueled Russia’s war. The decline in domestic oil production, plummeting from 13.1 million barrels a day in 2020 to 11.9 in the early months of 2022, afforded Vladimir Putin the wealth to embark upon the invasion. The President's steadfast commitment to eliminating fossil fuels further impedes America's capacity to expand its oil production and harness its natural gas reserves, which could be channeled to Ukraine in dire need.
Ignorance concerning Russia has roots that stretch back a decade. Recall in 2012 when Mitt Romney had the wisdom to designate Russia as America's preeminent geopolitical adversary. President Obama, Mr. Biden's former boss, gave a sardonic retort, quipping that "The 1980s want their foreign policy back," demonstrating a lack of seriousness regarding Mr. Romney's assessment.
That foolish utterance from Mr. Obama is an excellent illustration of why there is a lack of urgency regarding Ukraine. Many people genuinely do not perceive Russia as a serious and formidable threat. This perspective is fundamentally flawed, and it is critical that both parties clearly articulate support for Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin is an unrelenting menace to the world. In his eyes, the Cold War goes on, the dissolution of the Soviet Union was merely a 'rebranding' and an enduring struggle against the West continues. He frequently casts himself as a victim, placing the onus on the West for Russia's domestic failings during and after the fall of the Soviet Union.
In the 1990s, Mr. Putin was a staunch opponent of Russia's reformist forces, whose defeat thwarted any aspirations of Russia becoming democratic. Concurrently, Mr. Putin and his cohort were able to use the chaos to consolidate their grip over crucial industries, like oil. Mr. Putin and his ilk indulge in opulent Western luxuries, drink the finest champagne, and dine on caviar—while the Russian people suffer.
If Mr. Putin is successful in Ukraine, the action will reverberate across the globe, as all dictators will be emboldened. This expansionist agenda, I fear, would not be confined to just Ukraine, but could stretch further into Eastern Europe. Mr. Putin's ambitions are not confined just to Ukraine. His ultimate aspiration, his desired legacy, appears to be nothing less than the revival of his cherished Russian Empire.
He has carefully utilized propaganda to gain willing enablers in the Western world. Mr. Putin's latest campaign against the West lies in Slovakia. A populist former prime minister, Robert Fico, is campaigning on a plan to reverse the nation's military and political support for its Ukrainian neighbor. This stunning development is a direct challenge to the EU and NATO.
Mr. Fico, alongside his left-leaning Direction, or Smer party, has woven a narrative steeped in authoritarian sentiment and an unapologetic anti-American stance. Smer, is a Trojan horse, possibly affiliated with Russian foreign intelligence agencies.
Mr. Fico's message is gaining traction in Slovakia, with a striking 51% of its populace blaming the West and Ukraine for the war.2 This is a shocking reversal of sentiment, given how Slovakia was once at the forefront of providing support to Ukraine—furnishing air-defense missiles and fighter jets. Mr. Putin has successfully found a nation susceptible to his orbit, which should warrant our scrutiny and concern.
At home, Marjorie Taylor Greene's views resemble those of the Smer party. Her outspoken opposition to weapons shipments, coupled with her assertion that we should prioritize domestic concerns over supporting Ukraine, is unsettling. “We're not defending our own border. We're ignoring our people's problems," Mrs. Taylor Greene stated on 60 Minutes.
How interesting that Mrs. Taylor Greene invokes the southern border, where unchecked illegal immigration has overwhelmed the United States. A similar phenomenon has occurred in Europe, where mass migration from Africa and the Middle East, particularly Syria, has similarly strained the resources of the EU nations. The uptick in illegal immigration has Mr. Putin’s fingerprints all over it. The weaponization of refugees stands as one of his favored instruments of destabilization, a tactic not confined to Europe but reverberating across the global stage.
Russia's specific assaults on the agricultural sector, from blockades on grain exports to military strikes on agricultural facilities, have had the deleterious effect of disrupting the global food supply and fomenting a refugee crisis. Mr. Putin's continued imperialistic exploitation of Africa's food supply and monopolization of mineral rights have further exacerbated the struggles of its populace, with vital energy-related employment opportunities being taken away by Russia. Russia's geopolitical maneuvering has featured these tactics before; indiscriminate air strikes in Syria were aimed at displacing civilians and overwhelming Europe with refugees.
Mrs. Taylor Greene would do well to realize that removing Russia’s influence on the world stage would quell the influx of illegal immigration. Russia wants nothing more than to fracture American unity around Ukraine. Her rhetoric and its influence on the GOP serve nothing more than to achieve Mr. Putin’s wishes.
Likewise, Mr. Trump's claim: "I would get [Putin] into a room. I'd get Zelenskyy into a room. Then I'd bring them together. And I'd have a deal worked out" is unlikely to succeed. The destabilization of the West is a defining feature of Russia's foreign policy that their ruling class has propagated. It’s hard to negotiate with a rogue state like Russia that is presently complicit in a campaign of genocide and annihilation, particularly given the fact that they have already violated previously agreed terms with Ukraine on numerous occasions.
Could Mr. Trump secure a peace deal? But would it be in Ukraine's interests? One cannot be a negotiator in a dispute when one party consistently exhibits bad faith and disregards any international order. How can they trust Russia’s words?
A new solution is warranted.
"For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power," President Biden declared in Poland after Mr. Putin's invasion began. Mr. Biden was spot on, even if the White House walked back his remarks. The stark reality is that the only way to ensure peace and security in the West is through new leadership in Russia.
The notion is undoubtedly quietly circulating among the Russian populace, fueled by the reality unfolding before their eyes. Their army is a joke. Their invasion of Ukraine has faltered. Russians are becoming disillusioned, and disillusionment inevitably breeds anger and resentment.
Successful regime change, without military intervention, emanates not from the upper echelons of military flag officers or government officials, who are often deeply entrenched in the existing regime, nor from the lower ranks or bureaucrats. The change must emanate from the Russian people themselves; the West cannot force it upon them. This may prove difficult. Russia's populace loathes the West because of indoctrination, opportunism, and ideological fanaticism. Russians need to understand that Vladimir Putin has robbed them of freedom, sacrificed the lives of an entire generation, and should be removed.
The indomitable spirit of Ukraine is a testament to their people's dedication to the principles of freedom. The time has come for the West to unequivocally stand with them. President Biden must give Ukraine F16 fighter jets, the MGM-140 ATACMS, and anything else they need to ensure victory.
Inadequate assistance in this pivotal moment could prove costly for Ukraine and the broader cause of democracy and freedom. Russian dissidents have many options to consider; we erred in not helping Russia incorporate with the West after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has proved a costly mistake. When Ukraine's victory is achieved, and Mr. Putin relents and eventually departs, Russia could finally become an ally and join NATO, as many wished for before his rule.
As John Bolton pointed out in an opinion piece calling for Russian regime change:
China can hardly welcome the collapse of a regime that is turning into Beijing’s junior partner, if not an outright satellite. Chinese efforts to support Putin, even militarily, cannot be ruled out.
Russia could achieve a much greater potential. The West would emerge triumphant, and the last remnants of the Soviet Union would be relegated to the pages of history.
Agiesta, Jennifer. “CNN Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose More US Aid for Ukraine in War with Russia | CNN Politics.” CNN, Cable News Network, 4 Aug. 2023, www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/cnn-poll-ukraine/index.html.
Higgins, Andrew. “It’s One of Ukraine’s Fiercest Allies. But an Election Could Change That.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Sept. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/09/06/world/europe/slovakia-election-russia-ukraine.html.