As leaders gather in Washington this week to celebrate the 75th anniversary of history's most successful alliance, they are mindful that its future depends increasingly on Russia's defeat in Ukraine.
The West’s indecision to support a policy of Ukraine winning and confirming the international principle of territorial integrity is a recipe for forever conflict. The overly cautious approach to avoiding escalation of Putin's aggression in Ukraine leaves open the question of whether the U.S. can support Ukraine for as long as possible but not win. Winning requires the weapons and ammunition necessary to win.
David Sanger’s book New Cold Wars, an excellent first draft of our contemporary history, addresses the American realities of dealing with Ukraine and Russia. One school, shared by the frontline states on the Russian border, argues that letting Russia gain “one inch” of Ukrainian territory would induce Putin to expand his aggression.
The second school—France and Germany led—likes that Ukraine is fighting for our values but sees a negotiated settlement as the only plausible path to end the fighting. The U.S. wavers between both. However, most analysts have reflected on the ‘impossibility’ of expelling Russia from Ukraine and preferred an armistice that would leave Russia in control of part of Ukraine indefinitely.
We should be wary of pre-mature negotiations that would result in a frozen conflict like Korea or Minsk and allow Russia/Putin seven years to rest, rearm, and restart Russian aggression elsewhere. Why would we want to repeat that process of never-ending war?
If NATO is not prepared to grant Ukraine membership, it could still raise awareness of the Kremlin’s vulnerability through the concerted delivery of long-range weapons, fighter bombers, drones, tanks, ammunition, electronic warfare, arms production and Maintenance in Ukraine, and training in the country.
Germany’s military support for Ukraine is provided in the wake of American weapons. Keeping a bargaining chip of withholding or delaying weapons to force Ukraine to fight but not win is a strategy for continuing conflict. If Trump wins the election, Germany will be left to lead. Trump's election victory should not be greeted with relief in releasing Germany from American demands.
Also, calling the conflict a cold war or a cold peace does not follow the logic of Russian aggression. The conflict is unstable and aligned with Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian interests. The fight against Russian aggression is not a balanced stand-off between blocks that can be managed with détente. Is it not better to consider the analogy of Imperial Japan's 1931 invasion of China and annexation of Manchukuo? It took Nazi Germany until 1939 to launch its invasion of Poland and launch a world war. We should see today as a lead-up to war in the next 7-10 years.
Remember that Cicero argued that we must prepare for war to prevent war. We are in a pre-war period. Consequently, the priority must be rebuilding the depleted European defense industrial base after the Cold War peace dividend ended.
We now can regret believing Francis Fukuyama's thesis about the end of history. History has returned. We need to look forward to ensuring peace. Strategic foresight is needed more than ever!
--
Prof. James D. Bindenagel
Henry Kissinger Professor Emeritus, Universität Bonn
The West’s indecision to support a policy of Ukraine winning and confirming the international principle of territorial integrity is a recipe for forever conflict. The overly cautious approach to avoiding escalation of Putin's aggression in Ukraine leaves open the question of whether the U.S. can support Ukraine for as long as possible but not win. Winning requires the weapons and ammunition necessary to win.
David Sanger’s book New Cold Wars, an excellent first draft of our contemporary history, addresses the American realities of dealing with Ukraine and Russia. One school, shared by the frontline states on the Russian border, argues that letting Russia gain “one inch” of Ukrainian territory would induce Putin to expand his aggression.
The second school—France and Germany led—likes that Ukraine is fighting for our values but sees a negotiated settlement as the only plausible path to end the fighting. The U.S. wavers between both. However, most analysts have reflected on the ‘impossibility’ of expelling Russia from Ukraine and preferred an armistice that would leave Russia in control of part of Ukraine indefinitely.
We should be wary of pre-mature negotiations that would result in a frozen conflict like Korea or Minsk and allow Russia/Putin seven years to rest, rearm, and restart Russian aggression elsewhere. Why would we want to repeat that process of never-ending war?
If NATO is not prepared to grant Ukraine membership, it could still raise awareness of the Kremlin’s vulnerability through the concerted delivery of long-range weapons, fighter bombers, drones, tanks, ammunition, electronic warfare, arms production and Maintenance in Ukraine, and training in the country.
Germany’s military support for Ukraine is provided in the wake of American weapons. Keeping a bargaining chip of withholding or delaying weapons to force Ukraine to fight but not win is a strategy for continuing conflict. If Trump wins the election, Germany will be left to lead. Trump's election victory should not be greeted with relief in releasing Germany from American demands.
Also, calling the conflict a cold war or a cold peace does not follow the logic of Russian aggression. The conflict is unstable and aligned with Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian interests. The fight against Russian aggression is not a balanced stand-off between blocks that can be managed with détente. Is it not better to consider the analogy of Imperial Japan's 1931 invasion of China and annexation of Manchukuo? It took Nazi Germany until 1939 to launch its invasion of Poland and launch a world war. We should see today as a lead-up to war in the next 7-10 years.
Remember that Cicero argued that we must prepare for war to prevent war. We are in a pre-war period. Consequently, the priority must be rebuilding the depleted European defense industrial base after the Cold War peace dividend ended.
We now can regret believing Francis Fukuyama's thesis about the end of history. History has returned. We need to look forward to ensuring peace. Strategic foresight is needed more than ever!
--
Prof. James D. Bindenagel
Henry Kissinger Professor Emeritus, Universität Bonn
US-Botschafter a.D.