Should the United States Fight World War III for Ukraine?

This is not our Munich moment, yet.

By
45

Let’s start with two stories. 

The first is well known: After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, he rearmed Germany, withdrew from the League of Nations, remilitarized the Rhineland (1936), fought a proxy war in Spain, annexed Austria (1938), annexed half of Czechoslovakia (1938), and invaded Poland (1939). At every step, European leaders assumed they could stop further aggression by placating him with concessions, most famously with the Munich Agreement. They were wrong. The lesson every leader has taken for the past 80 years is that appeasement never works and leaders must show strength to face down bullies.

The second story teaches the opposite lesson and is not as well-known. In 1898, the French government sent troops into the interior of Africa to the Upper Nile river basin. The theory: If the French controlled the Nile, they could choke out the British, monopolize North African trade, even control the Suez Canal and shut down Britain’s access to India. As goes the Nile, so goes the world, was the theory. British and French troops met and faced off at a remote African town of Fashoda for nearly two months. London and Paris prepared for war, believing the fate of global empire hung in the balance. Cooler heads realized how ridiculous it was to fight global war for a remote bit of African desert, and war was averted. The less-well-known lesson: Not every crisis is the Archimedean Point upon which world order revolves.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin masses troops on the Ukrainian border, American observers are asking a series of questions. Is this Munich, or is it Fashoda? Is this a moment to project strength and face down an international bully hellbent on territorial conquest? Or is this a peripheral dispute blown out of proportion to which the responsible answer is not a war cry, but a shrug? Should the United States throw down, draw a line in the steppe, and relive its glory days leading the free world against tyranny? Or are we at risk of getting dragged into yet another unnecessary quagmire? 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
45
By
Comments (45)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Thanks, Paul! This was perhaps your best piece in the Dispatch yet. It definitely clarified things for me - and increasingly I’m of the opinion that these are not academic matters.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ethan Cordray

    Why would "World War III" be our only option for punishing Russia for invading Ukraine? I'm no expert, but I can think of a list of other options that aren't direct military action in Ukraine that could be done in response:
    1. Real economic warfare. Freeze all assets held by all Russian citizens in the US-controlled banking system. All of them, no exceptions. Embargo all exports and imports to Russia. Impound all Russian-flagged cargo vessels. Ban all investment in Russia by American companies.
    2. Real cyber warfare. Systematic cyber attacks on Russian oil and gas production infrastructure.
    3. Low-intensity clandestine operations. Torpedo (literally) the Nordstream 2 pipeline. Start directly sponsoring separatist movements in Chechnya, etc. Blow up some gas refineries.

    Are these all good ideas? I dunno, I'm not a geostrategist. But it really seems to me that people are unimaginative when it comes to responses to military aggression. There are a lot of moves one can make besides simply trying to defeat a Russian military offensive. Russia itself has figured out there there's a lot of ways to mess with the US. Are we still boxed in to thinking that military problems only have military solutions?

    Collapse
  3. Kyle C

    I like the piece, but I think your point about Fashoda is a little off. Cooler heads didn't prevail; France had no chance of holding Egypt once their Mediterranean fleet was destroyed. Napoleon realized this and left his army behind to slowly lose. There's no reason to fight a war when the Victor is already decided.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jean-Christophe Jouffrey

      Dear Kyle,

      Your chronology is off by a century.

      Fashoda is Commandant Marchand with a few Senegalese Skirmishes encountering Lord Kitchener with a big chunk of the British army one century after Napoléon in Egypt.

      Collapse
      1. Kyle C

        My bad

        Collapse
  4. Alex DeLarge

    This article is much smarter that Kasparov's anti-Putin diatribe. There is probably a good deal to be had if we don't get too arrogant and carried away with a pissing contest of who can look strongest. Frankly, Ukraine is probably better off without its fractious Russian population in the east. And an autonomous region would make a good buffer state with Russia. If it were smart, it would agree to abandon some of that dead weight. We and Europe would probably agree to compensate it with a whole bunch of military and financial aid. In return, Russia could agree to let Ukraine integrate with the EU and maybe throw in some extra security guarantees for the Baltics as icing. It could be win-win-win.

    By the way, some historians have pointed out that getting tough after Munich wasn't necessarily such a great call. Hitler wanted to invade Stalin's Russia, but the British stupidly gave a gratuitous war guarantee to Poland and then declared war on Germany. This forced Germany to invade France instead of letting the two totalitarian regimes duke it out while the democracies watched from the peanut gallery.

    Collapse
  5. Richard Fulmer

    There’s no question of “if” Russia invades Ukraine. In 2014, Russia invaded, and still occupies, Ukraine’s Donbas region - a fact oddly omitted from Mr. Miller’s brief history.

    Collapse
    1. Alex DeLarge

      Russia didn't invade, but Russians sponsored by Russia fought in local militias that took over parts of the Donbas. So that's a distinction for international law purposes even though everyone knows what's going on.

      Collapse
      1. Richard Fulmer

        In August 2014, Russian artillery and personnel crossed the border: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas?wprov=sfti1

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Narwhal

        The “little green men” who were observed in Eastern Ukraine may have been Russian troops. Some claim there is no doubt that they were but I honestly don’t know how they reached their certainty on the matter.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Paul Hoover

    A very informative and thought-provoking piece, Mr. Miller. Thank you! And thanks also to all the Dispatch commenters who have added depth and counterpoints below. I am not qualified to opine on these topics, but it's very useful to have the situation described in such a manner that allows one to consider various points of view.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Zach Larsen

    The current situation of course differs from Fashoda in many ways but the most important one is the way the countries projected strength. In 1898 the British were wrapping up a war against a radical Islamist movement which had swept out of the desert's of the Sudan and overrun the various imperial forces that controlled much of north Africa at the time. The British launched a decade long effort to roll back this menace to Egypt and secure their possessions in North Africa and put an end to the slave trade in the Sudan once and for all. The French were opportunists who thought that they could force Britain to make a deal to essentially share the spoils of their North African campaign by seizing this outpost in the upper Nile. Their gamble failed when the British refused to bargain with them and made it obvious that the superior forces down river would simply march right up the rest of the river till the French quit. So the French quit. I mention all this and ask this question. What have we and NATO been doing the last 10 years? Who is the one projecting the strength in Eastern Europe? Sure we may have more powerful armies than the Russians at our disposal, but that didn't stop the Taliban. The point is willpower not weapons alone put bullies in their place and it is very clear to the Russians, the Chinese and the Taliban that the US simply doesn't have the will to stand up and say no.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      BWG

      Sadly, I have to agree that the US has only turned more and more self-focused and less and less interested in helping maintain the international order.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    I do not believe Ukraine will be anything close to a Munich moment, should (God forbid) Putin try to invade. Russia is not ascendant economically, (like Nazi Germany was going into WWII) and though it does have land troops, it’s navy is debilitated and rotting and we are not even sure how well off their nuclear arsenal in.

    China going into Taiwan, however, is much more akin to Hitler marching into to Poland.

    An ascendant Chinese nation, radically mobilizing in nationalism, while demonizing its own people that do not conform to the will of the CCP, while militarily growing in strength year over year.

    And Taiwan however, does not have alliances that will automatically trigger should it be invaded by China like some of our NATO allies.

    If China is not deterred in Taiwan, we will have a dragons claw reaching around the world, and not an Iron Curtain.

    But in a larger analysis, it is very possible that Putin, even should he move more into the Baltics and Ukraine, may embolden China to make its move into Taiwan.

    Russia and China are both watching what America, under the current administration will do. As they are watching each other to see what their nations can get away with without repercussions.

    Tread carefully President Biden. You may wish to walk with a big stick.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      The best way to deter the PRC from invading the Republic of China may be for a preemptive joint declaration by most or all of NATO along with Australia, Japan. (I think it is best to leave Vietnam and some others in the region out even if they were willing to join in, I doubt India would be willing to join in but if they were then that might be good)

      The declaration would be rather simple and straightforward. If the PRC invades and seizes the ROC then there will be severe economic consequences which may or will include steep tariffs on all goods from the PRC, an embargo of some or even all goods that the PRC relies upon every day, and perhaps even a limited blockade of some trade coming from the Indian Ocean. Something like that.

      A very risky and costly situation for the world if we did all those things after the PRC invaded and seized the ROC. But, less risky and costly than war.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        You are basically saying (which I have advocated for) recreation of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) and have it do the same function as NATO except for China. Included would be Japan, Australia, India, Taiwan, and other countries to help hem in China’s ambitions.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          No, I specifically stated that Vietnam and other countries in the region with the exception of Japan not be included in the joint declaration, even if they were willing to participate. And that India would be unlikely to participate though their participation might be good.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            No I know you stated that, I was including those nations you didn’t and I said the word “basically”.

            Japan is militarizing and removing their older doctrine of not doing a military build up of the JSDF and revamping their navy and air force, and India would be more interested after all the border skirmishes they have had with China, as they have drawn closer to the US and not further.

            So them being a part of a joint pact like SEATO wouldn’t be so far fetched, things can accelerate very quickly these days. I wouldn’t rule it out.

            Collapse
  9. shanch

    "But you can relax, for now, sort of: Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and that makes all the difference." Sounds like an abortion arguement; "the cluster of cells is not a person, so that makes all the difference."

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    Good article.

    “Some observers believe Putin does not intend to invade, instead only to use his saber-rattling as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table. By threatening to invade he gets our attention, then agrees not to invade in return for our promise not to expand NATO or admit Ukraine. I agree—but that does not mean we can ignore the crisis or respond with diplomatic concessions.”

    I agree, but I also know that Russia already had de facto control over Crimea before they annexed it. The fact that about 75% of Ukraine’s maritime personnel based in Crimea switched sides is evidence of that prior de facto control. I think an important question is why Putin’s Russia felt the need to annex Crimea when it did. I also think they are far more interested in securing recognition of their annexation of Crimea than they are in seizing the Donbas or further invading Ukraine. But, I could be wrong.

    Ukraine has lost Crimea. The only question is whether we formally recognize this fact now or ever.

    “It means our countermoves are also important bargaining chips. If we let Putin wield his military as a coercive bargaining tactic and give him diplomatic concessions to get him to back down—as Biden seems ready to do with his proposal to pressure Ukraine to grant its eastern provinces autonomy as the price of peace with Russia—without first responding in kind, we have taught him that he can win the game of escalation dominance.”

    By responding in kind do you mean we should put NATO combat troops into Ukraine in a fight against Russian troops? Maybe I’m misunderstanding here because earlier in the article it seemed as if you acknowledged the danger and possible stupidity of doing so.

    “He can threaten more than we are willing to risk, and he can always increase his threats knowing we will reach our risk threshold before he reaches his. We’ll never call his final bluff and he wins by default. We effectively would hand Putin a heckler’s veto over European defense policy.”

    Yes, he can with Ukraine and Georgia. We have known this since at least 2008. But, just because he can in Georgia and Ukraine does not mean he can do so in the NATO member Baltic states.

    I think the push in the aughts by some to have Georgia and Ukraine join NATO, which some NATO members opposed, was foolish. We weren’t prepared to deal with the predictable response from Putin’s Russia. We were attempting to juggle more balls than we should have.

    Im also at least bit concerned as to what arms we should provide to Ukraine given what happened in Crimea. We certainly shouldn’t sell them any F-35s.

    Collapse
Load More