The Russia-Ukraine War After Year One

Fast Moving Events Require Determined, Disciplined US Response.

The beginning of every war is like opening the door into a dark room. One never knows what is hidden in the darkness.

—Adolf Hitler

Like a mighty river, the onrushing course of history may be altered in an instant. Accepted understandings of the world may be rendered irrelevant if not altogether misleading.

Consider the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation on Thursday, February 24, 2022.

Vladimir Putin ordered a “special military operation,” reportedly comprising approximately 200,000 military personnel. The Russian regime anticipated that a blitzkrieg, “shock and awe” approach would knock out the Ukrainian government.

That was a gambler’s throw gone wrong.

To subdue and occupy the entirety of Ukraine would require much larger numbers. The combined forces of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia invading Poland in September 1939 were more than ten times greater.

Putin was far from alone in his miscalculation.

Just a few months prior, the American government executed a hasty, shambolic evacuation of our two-decade war in Afghanistan. The Afghan president, facing the wrath of the resurgent Taliban, fled.

As Russian forces moved toward Kiev, the American administration offered safe passage to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Rather than accede, Zelensky responded with words for the ages:

The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.

The subsequent heroism of the Ukrainian people will live in history.

Unbridled Russian brutality has also elicited extraordinary humanitarian aid, exemplified by Angels for Ukraine:

Putin’s comeuppance prompted schadenfreude in many quarters. His misconceived actions further discredited his wantonly discreditable regime.

Five Challenges for the United States

The incompetence and ineffectiveness of the Russian forces surprised many experts. The initial months of the war lured some to express premature triumphalism. Some US officials saw an opening to “weaken” a rival nuclear power.

A year later, the conflict has entered another phase. With no end in sight, there’s a rising prospect of an extended war of attrition.

Major challenges are emerging:

—US Must Clarify War Aims. The Biden administration responded with alacrity to the initial Russian invasion. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance held firm.

The character of the struggle has changed from the heady early days. The nightmarish prospect of grinding, First-World-War-era stalemate looms.

It is essential that President Biden publicly acknowledge the new reality. The first step should be to clarify war aims.

The president declares that the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Yet he has not disclosed what that means. Congress and the American people await submission of a strategy and implementing policies for our review, input, and consent.

How will the various parties define victory? What can be the basis for negotiations? Given that the United States has joined forces with Ukraine, what other nations and/or leaders might be credible mediators or convenors of a settlement conference?

We are in uncharted waters.

The United States has not engaged in high-intensity conflict with another global power in more than three-quarters of a century.

Recent American interventions in less developed nations—including Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan—have yielded unsatisfactory results. In large part this is because nationalist movements and sentiments can outlast the commitment of a vastly superior military power operating at the periphery of its influence and interests.

The Russia-Ukraine War is something altogether different.

Ukraine manifestly faces an existential threat. It has elicited a nationalism unexpected by and unfamiliar to many.

Russia regards the war as addressing a metastasizing, existential threat at a historically vulnerable border.

Taken together, these factors pose the risk that American operational and material support for Ukraine (both direct and through NATO auspices) may occasion Russian retaliation against the United States.

President Putin has repeatedly refused to rule out resort to nuclear weapons.

Amid the evolving alliance between Russia and China, there is a non-negligible potential for wider great power conflict.

It is essential that American aims be clarified. Otherwise our field of action might be limited or dictated by events or actors outside of our control.

—Review International Institutions and Alliances. The Russia-Ukraine War has exposed the utter incapacity of the United Nations to respond meaningfully to an unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation.

The egregiousness of the violation of international law and institutions has illuminated emerging fissures among leading nations.

China appears to be moving toward increasing enmeshment with the Putin regime’s war making.

India and other rising powers have sought to maintain some distance.

The thirty-member NATO alliance faces internal stress, perhaps intensifying if the conflict continues for an extended period. The US is the primary driver of this vital alliance. The relative contributions of blood and treasure going forward—including in reconstruction of Ukraine—will be matters of urgent consideration and spirited debate.

From the point of view of the Russians, their adversaries may appear akin to nested dolls: the Ukrainians are on the outside; NATO is contained within them; the United States is at the core.

—Cultivate Strategic Empathy. Many contemporary Americans privilege their “lived experience.” This undervalues the power of empathy, the capacity to comprehend another’s perspective.

Empathy is not a “soft” skill. It is a keystone of effective strategy.

Empathy is not to be confused with sympathy.

Vladimir Putin can be seen as a devil who merits no sympathy whatsoever. By contrast, the point of view he represents should be subjected to methodical, empathetic analysis in order to craft the most effective countermeasures.

It can be difficult for a hegemonic power of long standing, such as the United States in 2023, to apply empathy. The existing order reflects our interests and values.

The American administration routinely cites the need to protect “the rules-based international order.” Rising powers, revisionist powers, allies and adversaries may experience a status quo where the US makes the rules and gives the orders.

Russia and China are pressing claims on neighboring nations. It should not be unexpected that they—and others—question the United States’ enduring dominance of the Western Hemisphere through the Monroe Doctrine. They may recall the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, with interpretations at variance with ours.

—History Is a National Security Issue. History is contested in the Russia- Ukraine War. The United States, NATO, and Ukraine hew to one narrative. President Putin expresses another.

History can inform strategy in a very practical way.

Many Russians and others argue that the war did not begin in February 2022. Some would point to February 2014. With the apparent encouragement of American officials, the Maidan Revolution resulted in the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president viewed as sympathetic to Russia. Others point to various milestones of the expansion of NATO following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

More broadly, historical analysis can lift us from too great a fixation on current events. It can expand our collective imagination, enabling us to prepare more effectively for a range of contingencies.

This includes, as acknowledged by President Biden, the risk of world war.

—The President Must Earn Public Support for Ukraine Policy. Arguably most important is the need for the president to earn public support for our national strategy.

With the immediate response to the crisis of February 2022 increasingly distant, Mr. Biden should attend to the urgent task of seeking a declaration of war or related legislation to ensure that the Constitution is followed.

At present, many supporters of the president’s actions and words regard any questioning as hostile or counterproductive. This is a mistake.

Congress is our constitutional forum for holding presidents to account. It is the forum where We, the People make our voices heard and heeded on matters of war and peace.

The Congress has authorized well over $100 billion in aid to Ukraine. There has been scant accounting of the spending or evaluation of the results.

What is the administration’s vision of the future? Is the reconstruction of Ukraine also to be funded largely by American taxpayers?

What other domestic and international priorities will give way to redirect resources toward the war and its aftermath?

Will the United States continue to run up debt beyond the levels of the Second World War? Will such indebtedness erode the dollar’s privileged position as the world’s reserve currency?

These matters require a national response. Mr. Biden should take care to earn the public support of skeptical Democrats, as well as Republicans and Independents. Overly personalizing a major foreign policy project is a recurring temptation and fateful risk for American presidents.

In the meantime, we’re at the mercy of events. If Russia and its allies sponsor or undertake actions against United States military assets or our domestic infrastructure, for example, will the American people offer durable support for the administration’s response?

Such questions may be transformed from distant, academic hypotheticals to tragic, consequential dilemmas in the blinding flash of a hinge moment.

Image Credit | Office of the President of the United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; Matryoshka nested dolls, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 via Wikipedia.