By Doug Bandow
As the United States and its European allies continue to provide Ukraine with the wherewithal to kill Russian soldiers and strike ever deeper in Russian territory, the potential for retaliatory escalation creeps higher. Kiev is of course entitled to respond harshly to Moscow’s invasion. As it is doing so with Western weapons, however, Russia has increasing reason to treat NATO countries as formal belligerents, with potentially catastrophic results.
The New York Times reported that Russia’s Defense Minister Andrei Belousov recently called Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “to relay a warning, according to two U.S. officials and another official briefed on the call: The Russians had detected a Ukrainian covert operation in the works against Russia that they believed had the Americans’ blessing. Was the Pentagon aware of the plot, Mr. Belousov asked Mr. Austin, and its potential to ratchet up tensions between Moscow and Washington?”
Austin apparently denied U.S. responsibility, but he would do so whatever the truth. Belousov’s question demonstrated the increasing risk of Washington’s proxy war. Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s assurances carry little weight given its outsize role in the conflict. America’s presence in Ukraine was great at the start and has grown along with the conflict. Public claims of responsibility for killing Russian generals and sinking Russian ships confirmed Washington’s participation.
Moscow’s failure to retaliate led some observers to view Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as a paper tiger, though Austin reportedly “warned his Russian counterpart not to threaten U.S. troops in Europe amid rising tensions in Ukraine.” However, with its forces on the advance Moscow would be foolish to risk triggering full-scale allied intervention. Better to take a slower, more expensive win than gamble everything on a U.S. climbdown. In contrast, had Kiev come close to achieving the expansive objectives growing out of its early success—ousting the Russian leader, overthrowing the Russian regime, and even breaking up the Russian federation—it is doubtful Putin would have been so reticent in using his nation’s superior firepower. Those who assure us that he would never do so are the same people who were certain he would never invade Ukraine.
In the meantime, Kiev is suffering badly. Its manpower losses have been much greater than reported. A Ukrainian legislator admitted that his government “vastly downplayed the war’s true toll.” American estimates are more than double the number stated by President Volodymyr Zelensky, and they also are probably too low. Moreover, Kiev’s recruiting travails have been much noted, with even the medically unfit being conscripted, and the government facing increasing draft resistance. Also notable is Russia’s artillery and air superiority. And there is more.
Writing of Ukrainian commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, the Guardian’s Luke Harding reports:
Two and half years into Vladimir Putin’s full-scale onslaught, he acknowledges the Russians are much better resourced. They have more of everything: tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, soldiers. Their original 100,000-strong invasion force has grown to 520,000, he said, with a goal by the end of 2024 of 690,000 men. The figures for Ukraine have not been made public. “When it comes to equipment, there is a ratio of 1:2 or 1:3 in their favor,” he said. Since 2022 the number of Russian tanks has “doubled—from 1,700 to 3,500. Artillery systems have tripled, and armored personnel carriers gone up from 4,500 to 8,900. “The enemy has a significant advantage in force and resources.”
lthough none of this means Kiev cannot win, it continues to lose ground and its notable successes, such as against the Russian Black Sea fleet, do not retrieve land losses. Deeper strikes into Russia and increased attempts to isolate Crimea are likely to spark more aggressive retaliatory attacks rather than strategic retreats. With the failure of Western sanctions to break the Russian economy, Moscow remains better able to absorb the costs of continuing war. Absent direct allied entry into the war, Ukrainian victory remains a long shot.
Yet proposals for Washington and Brussels to adopt a peace strategy trigger frenzied wailing and gnashing of teeth in both capitals. President Joe Biden and congressional leaders continue to pledge their support for the war. In mid-July the administration announced the multilateral “Ukraine Compact,” through which it would “Support Ukraine’s immediate defense and security needs, including through the continued provision of security assistance and training, modern military equipment, and defense industrial and necessary economic support,” and more. Before that the president called Zelensky “to underscore the United States’ lasting commitment to supporting Ukraine.”
In Europe assorted European Union and national governments sharply criticized Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose nation holds the rotating 6-month presidency, for traveling to Moscow to talk peace. Reuters reported that Orban’s efforts “sparked fury among many EU governments and officials.” The European Parliament passed a resolution criticizing Orban for his “uncoordinated and surprising visit” and reaffirmed the “unwavering commitment of the EU to providing political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support for as long as it takes to secure Ukraine’s victory.” Unfortunately for Kiev, the legislators provided more verbiage than artillery shells.
In contrast, broader public opinion is becoming more skeptical of a potentially endless war. A new report from the European Council on Foreign Relations found an important divergence between Ukrainian and European attitudes toward the conflict: “Ukrainians want weapons in order to win, while most Europeans send weapons hoping this will help lead to an acceptable eventual settlement.” Continental skepticism toward the war is likely to continue rising as politics shifts rightward. Moreover, almost half of Ukrainians back peace negotiations with Moscow. While most still expect victory, the number prepared to make concessions for peace is increasing. According to the Times of London, “One in three people, or 32 per cent, now say that they would agree to cede territory to Moscow to bring about peace, according to the Kiev International Institute of Sociology. The figure this time last year was 10 per cent.” If Russian advances and Ukrainian losses continue, this shift is likely to continue.
In principle, enhancing Ukrainian bargaining leverage is a sensible strategy. Nevertheless, since the invasion, Kiev’s position has steadily weakened, except for the relatively brief 2023 counteroffensive. Ukraine’s maximum strength was in early 2022, before Russian tanks rolled. Yet the U.S. would not even consider discussing Kiev’s prospective membership. Ukraine also was well-positioned during the Istanbul negotiations shortly after Moscow’s attack. At that point the former’s main concession for peace would have been a promise of neutrality. Alas, the Western allies, pushing their own objectives, most importantly weakening Russia, encouraged Kiev to reject this apparent opportunity to settle.
With every passing day Moscow’s forces are acquiring more territory while Ukraine’s military is weakening and its home front is suffering. No current plans, either aid from Europe or action by Kiev, appear likely to reverse the war’s course. To continue a fight in which Ukraine is the battlefield and Ukrainians are suffering most of the casualties and destruction in hope that allied Wunderwaffe, delivered in sufficient quantities and time, will lead to a miraculous victory, appears delusional. If the allies are not willing to risk World War III and enter the conflict—as they should not!—they should shift their priority to restoring peace.
Russia’s invasion was unjust, though encouraged by reckless allied policy, but funding a perpetual war for the return of Ukraine’s lost lands is not in the West’s interest. Indeed, with the persistent risk of escalation atop the costs of ongoing combat, continued fighting is in no one’s interest, other than America’s and other nations’ major arms-makers. Ukraine’s former military commander, Valery Zaluzhny, inadvertently made the case for peace when he forecast a new world war: “Is humanity ready to calmly accept the next war in terms of the scale of suffering? This time the Third World War? Free and democratic countries and their governments need to wake up and think about how to protect your citizens and their countries.”
The Russo–Ukrainian conflict is a humanitarian disaster. It also risks unleashing global nuclear war. Belousov’s phone call should wake up slumbering officials in Washington. The U.S. is engaged in hostilities against the Russian Federation. The combat is indirect, but real, with Americans responsible for thousands of Russian deaths and mass destruction of materiel. The slope toward full-scale war grows ever more slippery. It is imperative to end the Ukraine imbroglio before it spreads.
