Jul 26, 2023 6 min read

(First of two parts)

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, was a challenge to the international world order.

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, claimed that the Ukrainian government was mistreating ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, it was filled with neo-Nazis, and that Ukraine wasn’t really a nation distinct from Russia. Putin launched this “special operation” to “denazify” Ukraine. While the Azov Battalion – formed by volunteers to put down the Russian-supported rebellion in eastern Ukraine in 2014 – has had neo-Nazi elements, the government has tried to reduce their influence; both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Premier Volodymyr Groysman are Jewish, so they are well aware of the potential dangers of neo-Nazis. Putin’s neo-Nazi claim is a ruse. Putin had expanded Russia’s borders previously in Georgia and Crimea, but the historical claims of Russian sovereignty in those areas were stronger. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine cannot be justified.

When President Biden warned of a Russian invasion after the Winter Olympics, he was criticized for being overly dramatic. But he was right. The Russians planned a lightning strike against Kyiv, and thought that success would quickly end the war. Putin badly miscalculated, as the Ukrainians not only never lost Kyiv, but were able to inflict major losses and regain much of the territory initially lost. The Russian Army was exposed as poorly equipped and poorly led. The war thus far has been a disaster for Putin, since not only has it cost blood and treasure, but it also drove Sweden and Finland into NATO, strengthening the organization he was hoping to destroy.

The war has generated some interesting politics in the United States. The Republican Party, which has traditionally wanted to project American power abroad, and has considered Russia an enemy since the Russian Revolution in 1917, has largely opposed American aid to Ukraine. Former President Donald Trump’s admiration of Putin has encouraged this shift and there has always been an isolationist wing of the Republican Party. “America first” was first used by Republican isolationists in the 1930s. And, of course, in a scorched-earth, polarized political world, there is a reflexive Republican opposition to everything President Biden does.

On the far left, while no one is praising Putin, there is a traditional concern about using American weapons to kill people in foreign lands, since that has often led to poor outcomes. The populist right is more concerned about wasting U.S. dollars on other countries. Their common narrative suggests that U.S. support for Ukraine is a lot like recent military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. There is a mistrust of institutions; critics claim the government is lying about the progress of the war, as happened in Vietnam and Iraq, though the recent coup attempt against Putin somewhat undermines that argument. Critics argue the establishment – called the foreign policy “blob” on the left and the “deep state” on the right – is using the war to make money or amass power, and we are wasting resources that would be better off being used in the U.S. While it is certainly true that arms manufacturers are benefiting from the use of American weapons in the war, a lot of the U.S. spending on American weapons stays in America in wages to those who work in the defense industries, and profits to American stockholders, so some Americans benefit financially from our military support for Ukraine. The U.S. military also benefits by learning how its weapons perform in combat.

But while the critics are right about enriching arms manufacturers and excessive military spending, there are some clear differences that make these historical examples inappropriate models. First, unlike Iraq and Vietnam, the majority of Ukrainians clearly want our support. This was also an invasion and a conventional war, not a civil war or uprising against the government, where it might be hard to distinguish friend from foe. Importantly, there are no American troops at risk. Finally, effective support for Ukraine would make it theoretically possible to reduce future military spending because the world would be safer.

The mainstream view is that Putin is clearly violating international law, Ukraine is justifiably (and admirably) resisting, and all peace-loving nations should support Ukraine’s efforts to resist Russian aggression. Initially there was some hesitancy to get completely on Ukraine’s side, because if Ukraine collapsed quickly, as many feared it would, doing so would anger Putin for no good reason, as well as prolong the war, increasing casualties and destruction, or even just waste resources on a hopeless situation. Once it became clear that Ukraine could hold its own, many NATO members began providing weapons and other forms of support. Then the concern became making sure a newly empowered Ukraine would not escalate the war by striking Russia itself. It is odd that a nation defending itself is not allowed to strike the nation attacking it, but since Russia has nuclear weapons – ironically, Ukraine had been convinced to give its nuclear weapons to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union – no one wants to see Russia use them.

Internationally, while most nations have condemned the Russian aggression, support for Ukraine is not universal. Russian allies, such as Iran and North Korea, have offered Putin their support. Putin made a huge effort to cultivate Chinese support, and China has refused to condemn the invasion, and has provided a lot of diplomatic and economic support. But as Russia has struggled, Chinese support seems to have wavered as well. India as adopted a policy of “strategic neutrality” – the country depends on Russia for weapons and energy. Many African nations depend upon Ukrainian grain, which is now at the mercy of the Russians, so they are reluctant to condemn Moscow.

Helping Ukraine defeat the Russian invasion is not only the right thing to do, it is important for the US strategically. The outcome of the Russian invasion will certainly have an impact on China’s desire to take control of Taiwan. Aggression must not pay off, or it will happen again.

Kent James is a member of East Washington’s borough council.