The Alternative to Winning in Ukraine Is Endless War

Advocates for a hasty peace are wrong to think Russia will keep its promises or stop with Ukraine.

By and
39
A woman cries as she prepares to evacuate from Kherson. Weeks after liberation, Kherson and surrounding villages are bombarded daily by Russian troops. (Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto/Getty Images.)

In his historic address before Congress on Wednesday,  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky declared a victory of sorts. Acknowledging the contributions of the United States and Europe, he said, “We defeated Russia in the battle for minds of the world. We have no fear, nor should anyone in the world have it.” But there is still the matter of the battle for Ukraine itself. Ukraine cannot win without continued support from the United States. And even as Zelensky was meeting with President Biden at the White House on Wednesday, opponents of that support were making themselves heard.

House Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and Paul Gosar spent the day arguing that it was not in America’s interest to defend Ukraine and that we should put “America first.” And many Americans dislike issuing “blank checks” to Ukraine or are exhausted with “forever wars.” The fact is, victory in Ukraine is not only in America’s interest, it’s absolutely necessary if Americans want to avoid a forever war in Europe. 

The good news: Ukraine is currently winning. At every stage of the war, Ukrainian forces have outfought and outfoxed Russia. They have repeatedly embarrassed the doom casters and defeatists who either predicted a swift Russian victory or a hopeless stalemate. Since February, Ukrainians have reclaimed an astonishing 25,000 square miles of their land—an area nearly the size of Florida—and set the conditions to restore full sovereignty over their country, including Crimea. This is not what a forever war looks like. Ukrainians have demonstrated that they can finish the fight that Russia started if given the tools, technology, and weapons to do so. 

Advocates for a hasty “peace” with Russia make two fundamental miscalculations. First, they assume that Russia will negotiate in good faith and keep its promises. The Kremlin’s track record says otherwise. 

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
39
By and
Comments (39)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Very true

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    "Since February, Ukrainians have reclaimed an astonishing 25,000 square miles of their land—an area nearly the size of Florida—and set the conditions to restore full sovereignty over their country, including Crimea"

    I do not see how they have set the conditions to restore full sovereignty over their country. I am influenced by this recent essay from Stephen Biddle, here is a key passage.

    "Since at least 1917 it has been very hard to break through properly supplied defenses that are disposed in depth, supported by operational reserves, and prepared with forward positions that are covered and concealed (and especially so without air superiority)"
    https://warontherocks.com/2022/11/ukraine-and-the-future-of-offensive-maneuver/

    This would explain Ukraine's offensives (or should I say counter-offensives) against Kherson and Kharkiv. In both of these positions Russia was overstretched which invited Ukrainian counterattacks leading to Russia retreating to more defensible positions. Ukrainian offensives succeed when they face weak Russian positions, but will flounder against strong Russian defenses.

    If the above writing is correct then there is no way for the West to win by supplying Ukraine with the best weapons to launch an offensive against Russia. It may be that the best strategy is to slowly wear down Russian positions until their defensive lines weaken enough to allow a breakthrough attack. The war in Ukraine could be fought throughout the rest of the decade.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Mike B

    I agree with the first three critical aims for Ukrainian victory - restoration of all occupied lands to pre-2014 borders; reparations; and repatriation of all Ukrainian citizens.

    The fourth aim, NATO membership, should be a long-range goal but should be contingent on eliminating oligarchy and corruption, which will take generations, given how entrenched they have become.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Normb1442

      That Ukraine had a corrupt government before Zelenskyy took office is of course true -- that's why he was elected. How much changed on his watch is less clear. I have never heard anything indicating that he is personally corrupt. If anyone can inform me on this, I"d be grateful.

      Collapse
  4. Gbm311

    Really nice perspective. I despair that so many conservatives like Tucker Carlson have lined up against Zelensky without solid evidence of corruption. Russia needs to be feared and opposed as much as possible by all in the West and only the USA has the resources and fortitude to do so.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    Excellent piece, thank you.

    It is strategically and morally imperative to help Ukraine to defend itself. I’d prefer to grant Zelenksy’s requests for assistance in the form of tanks and jets. He is 100% correct that this spending, like Lend-Lease is not charity, not by a long shot. It is the tools to win a fight that is critical for our interests too. This is an investment in democracy and a better future. We’d be fools to balk at support here - this is exactly what the sort of thing that justifies US hegemony - what we lost trying to force self-determination down the barrels of rifles in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need for the world to see that we’re still on their team, not team oligarch-emperor.

    Collapse
  6. Nevertime

    I hope Ukraine wins hands down but the way we are going about it with just enough uncertainty and less than total commitment sure seems like we are deliberately stringing along Russia so that Ukraine can grind down their military as much as possible. If we threw in more and better weapons behind Ukraine they could win this much faster, but why not decimate Russia's military and economy for another generation in the process.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Thomas Grimmer

      It's a reasonable argument to say that the piecemeal/slowly escalating support is to stop Russia from escalating too fast (e.g. nukes). Furthermore, I think it's reasonable to hold back our best stuff both for logistics/training reasons, and well, to keep it secret.

      Also, I'm just plain skeptical of the assertion that NATO weapons transferred into the hands of the Ukrainians would just be an immediate war winner. That overstates the Ukrainian military's current offensive potential, and underestimates Russia's defensive ability. We're buying them months or years off the war, but on the back end.

      Collapse
  7. Mwupton

    Ben Shapiro had a good thread on the difference between American and Ukrainian interests in outcomes of the war (despite the last tweet in the thread which was a cop out on the worst rhetoric against Ukraine). I wish more right-wing skeptics of Ukrainian aid took a tact closer to this rather than calling Zelensky a welfare queen. https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1605899823491620866

    However, this article is more persuasive. Russia didn't stop with Crimea, and there is no reason to think a peace deal will hold.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Thomas Grimmer

      It's more intelligent analysis than Shapiro usually gives. He's still wrong though. NATO interests in no way countenance a partially victorious Russia. The diminution of the Russian military is accomplished for now, but a settlement that gets Ukraine even partially under the Russian thumb emboldens Russia and threatens NATO.

      As for the assertion that a collapsed Russia is more dangerous a Putinist Russia: perhaps, but I don't see how the US/NATO could prevent that. I mean, would we really pull a Russian Civil War and send troops to reinstall the Tsar/Putin?

      Collapse
    2. Pohl

      I don’t accept the myth of a lasting peace against a nuclear bad actor. There won’t be a settlement like after WWII; Russia will not be re-made in our image. Thus, we needn’t make the perfect (peace) the enemy of the good.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Wade Paulsen

      Because you provided a link, I went to read Shapiro's thread. He's far too facile about both US and Ukrainian interests. First, the US does NOT have an interest in "preventing Russia's absolute collapse." Russia is a lot like Yugoslavia was -- under Serbian control, it was a danger to everyone; with Serbia reduced to just another independent state, the entire European security environment has changed. A Russia that still controls an empire, even if it's a reduced empire, is still a danger to the world, including Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, etc. A Russia reduced to the boundaries of the Russian people would not be.

      Crimea is a perfect example. The Soviets deported the native Crimean Tatars in bulk and took the best parts of the country for its apparatchiks. We don't have any interest in that battle, but supporting the status quo in Crimea is explicitly supporting Russian empire. Is that in the U.S.'s national interests? Shapiro never considers this; he just longs for "peace at any price". But the real national goal for the U.S. has to be an end to Russian expansionism in the service of empire. That's the point that this Doran/Stradner article makes clear.

      Collapse
  8. DTruitt

    There does not seem to be a “peace camp” today since the Dems - the knee jerk peace campers in most conflicts - are all in with supporting Ukraine, but rather there is a small isolationist camp … which camp has always existed and waxed and waned ever since the American Revolution. Isolationists could not care less whether peace breaks our, or war, as long as the US does not get involved and thereby drag us into a long, bloody, and costly war.

    This is really a peculiar situation in American politics. Dems, who are natural peaceniks, are extremely riled at Putin’s Russia, while they repeatedly turned a blind eye to much the same bad behavior of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, etc etc.

    So what gives? The obvious answer is the Dems are motivated by political payback for Putin’s active interference in the 2016 election on behalf of Trump and in opposition to Clinton. Can anyone imagine Dems beating the drums to supply Uyghur insurgents against Xi? Or for getting deeply involved in supporting anti-Islamist protestors and insurgents in Iran? Neither can I.

    A small subset of Republicans are cool to supporting Ukraine, with a tiny cadre who are energetic opponents of Putin’s enemies. That these same folks also include some of the most rabid radical Trump fans is not surprising either, because Trump himself is so cozy with Putin and his oligarch cohorts. And in part it is also a knee jerk counter to Dem support of Ukraine. But for all the attention given these kooks, don’t kid yourself that this faction represents any more than the 1/4 of Republicans who voted against the Ukraine aid bills over the last couple of years.

    Look, a pretty good sized majority of American voters now support continued support of Ukraine in fighting off Russia (though that could change in a hurry if the war turns into a costly NATO-Russia conflict). But don’t kid yourselves - Democrat support for Ukraine and anti-Putin fervor is highly selective, and is not just about righting wrongs in geopolitical relations.

    Collapse
    1. Petera

      The major difference between Putin now and Pol Pot, Castro etc is pretty simple.

      It's one thing to mess up your own country. Another thing to invade a (semi) functioning democracy by force. That's an important difference.

      Also, it's Europe. That may not be a fair or logical reason, but Americans tend to care more about the European political order than Asia and rest of world.

      Collapse
      1. DTruitt

        You write of distinctions that do not make differences. Murdering hundreds of thousands or millions of innocents has no justification just because it involves people who live on one side of a national border vs the other side. Besides, Putin claims there is no such nation as Ukraine, that it is part of Russia.

        Argument fail.

        Collapse
        1. Petera

          Right - there is no moral difference between killing your own citizens vs those of another country. But there is a practical difference. Trying to fix the first thing leads to perpetual nation building and failure. The second thing is fixable. We intervene in the second thing because we can win and prevent the problem. We cannot do much about the first, unfortunately.

          And Putin can say whatever he wants about Ukraine. He's wrong, and his assertions should make no difference to us.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Ed P

      Speaking for myself personally, this guy never was on board with Pol Pol, Ho Chi Minh, Castro etc. i think you are casting an extremely broad net that only captures maybe 15% of actual Democrats that had any love for any of those villains.

      Consider Putin is a fascist dictator engaged in World War 3 against liberal Democracy worldwide, so that dictators like him are allowed to exist for another generation.

      https://radmod.substack.com/p/clearly-defining-putins-hybrid-wwiii

      Collapse
      1. DTruitt

        Considering that the guy who won more than 1/3 of the Dem primary vote in each of the last two presidential elections was BFF with Castro and calls himself as socialist (which is what communists call themselves) your math is way off.

        So where is your demand to go to war with Xi? Or with Maduro? Or with Kim? Or with the Castroites? Or with the Iranians?

        Very selective you guys are.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ed P

          See my post below. I’m not selective. I’m paying attention to to the right opportunities. This hubristic notion we’d be welcomed as saviors while necessarily needing to maintain security as a foreign invading force of different culture race and religion.

          And was right to have protested Iraq and Afghanistan 20 years ago.

          Seems to me the Biden administration has navigated this conflict quite well, the Western alliance still intact, Russian army beaten down and likely to lose Crimea.

          Russia is failing under the weight of its gross corruptions. Its leadership deserves to be replaced by the decent people of Russia.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Aylene Wright

        "i think you are casting an extremely broad net that only captures maybe 15% of actual Democrats".

        I agree, but it's his brand.

        Collapse
        1. DTruitt

          The committed friend and ally of Fidel Castro won more than 1/3 of the Dem primary vote in each of the last two presidential elections. 40% > 15% last time I checked.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Aylene Wright

            If you're talking about Bernie, the idea that every Democrat who voted for him also supports Castro is as silly as the idea that every Republican who voted for Trump also supports Putin. Which I actually concede is a popular misconception among Democrats.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Mattjabour

      This ain't your grandad's Democratic party. The Khmer Rouge was almost 50 years ago. Any Democrats who supported Pol Pot are now using walkers - and some of them probably don't consider themselves Democrats anymore, just judging by the average AARP member.

      Social progress is kind of the left's whole dealio these days, and Putin represents the exact opposite of that. He's anti-LGBTQ and pro-imperialism, which is incidentally part of the reason some Republicans love the guy. I know a lot of fellow leftists who are extremely vocal in their support of the Iran protests as well - I'm not sure why it seems so far-fetched to you.

      Don't kid yourself either. There's nothing knee-jerk about the left's support for Ukraine. Every liberal worth his or her salt knows that if the world is to keep moving forward, Putin's gotta go.

      Collapse
      1. DTruitt

        But Xi doesn’t need to go? Nor the Iranian mullahs? Nor Kim? Nor Maduro? Nor the Castoite regime?

        You prove my point - Dems are highly selective in whom they show outrage, with the major criterion being they and you detest anyone who is politically inconvenient.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mattjabour

          They all need to go. I don't like a single one of those guys, neither do the vast majority of my party. I didn't mention them initially because it seems so blatantly obvious.

          You are making bad faith assumptions for absolutely no reason. Democrats hate despots - all of them. What Kim-loving Democrats have you been talking to that convinced you otherwise?

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Ed P

          How’d it work out guns ablazin In Afghanistan and Iraq? Not so great. The Bush Doctrine was a total fail and has cost us dearly. So please take a chill pill with this line of thinking.

          There’s a time and a place for intervention.

          When a free nation is getting pummeled by a larger oppressive neighbor, trying to inflict suffering, to impose tyranny - that is simply the lowest hanging fruit.

          I’d love to see Xi gone and the Mullahs and all oppressive governments. But you can’t impose self determination at gun point. It just doesn’t work that way and it was stupid and counterproductive like we said it would be.

          Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          Thomas Grimmer

          I don't know, if I had a sandbox alternate universe, I'd definitely want to see how an RSK/US invasion of North Korea followed by a massive social rehabilitation project would turn out.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Ed P

            I’m not sure how you do that without the Norks annihilating Seoul. They have millions of hostages.

            Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Chris L

    Nick's article yesterday unfortunately upends this one by, I think, accurately exposing the actual motivations for the peaceniks about Russia/Ukraine. Namely, they have no interest in actual peace, only in supporting rank authoritarianism. After all, when I think of MTG, Gaetz, and Gosar, "peace" is definitely not the first thing that comes to mind, but the complete opposite.

    Collapse
  10. Pohl

    NATO membership “would eliminate Russia’s ability to invade Ukraine in the future.” Yet, we should also worry that nearby NATO countries are “in the bullseye of future Kremlin wars.” Not much of an argument for NATO expansion if some members are more equal than others. Either being in NATO makes you invulnerable, or it doesn’t. (It doesn’t.)

    I’d also say again that time to rebuild its forces applies equally to Ukraine. Although outright victory is preferable, even an imperfect peace allows the West to fortify Ukraine against future conflict. But I support a prudent reading of what circumstances there will allow. I definitely don’t support a hasty peace. Nor do I support victory at any price, terms usually set by the aggressor.

    This is what has made a statement of war aims, such as recovery of all territory, difficult for the US. I think we can let Zelensky continue to float terms, for now, and hope his latest peace proposal has some legs.

    Merry Christmas!

    Collapse
    1. Petera

      Time to rebuild forces typically favors the losing side.

      Collapse
      1. Pohl

        Does it? I think we can rearm Ukraine better than Russia can rearm itself. At least, that’s what the war seems to show so far.

        Collapse
        1. Petera

          Maybe. But, if Ukraine has the momentum, seems no good reason to stop them. And, if a pause really does benefit Ukraine, they can do it unilaterally simply by pausing their offensives. There is no need for them to adopt an agreement that dictates to them the timeline of the pause and when they can resume.

          Collapse
          1. Pohl

            I had in mind a more permanent truce that would allow us to give them things that up til now have been considered escalatory. I agree their Attack! Attack! Attack! is working now.

            Collapse
Load More