Our interest is to degrade Russia’s arsenal and uphold standards against territorial aggression. Ukraine can decide when it’s had enough killing.
What is America’s interest in Ukraine?
I agree with our excellent editorial, arguing that President Trump’s squeezing of Ukraine to, in effect, surrender to Russia — to make concessions even beyond what may be rationalized by Kyiv’s battered position on the battlefield — is “no path to sustainable peace.” I also take our reference to “sustainable peace” as, not NR’s assessment of America’s highest interest, but rather our explanation that, even on the president’s own terms (he just wants peace, you see), his appeasement means to not line up with his stated end — assuming we’re talking about a “peace” that’s something other than a temporary cease-fire during which Vladimir Putin rests and rearms for the next invasion (since Putin’s objective is conquest, not peace).
My point here is to challenge the premise that peace, even sustainable peace, is the top priority of the United States.
I don’t doubt that it is the top priority of Donald Trump. For all his bloviations about the progressive left, he craves its approval, echoes its conciliatory blandishments (toward the war criminal, not the victim), and would love to be seen as Nobel material. And like his predecessors over the last three decades, he has deluded himself into believing he is the one who is going to convert Putin, a dyed-in-the-wool American enemy, into a partner with whom he’ll do great deals — would that he’d negotiate with Putin as “Mafia Don,” the persona he’s adopted in dealing with American law firms and universities.
But what about America’s interests? Trump always confounds those with his own, but they are quite different.
I don’t mean to seem callous, especially since, as a human being and a Christian, of course I want the bloodshed to stop. But if I were a government official responsible for prioritizing America’s interests, peace would not top the list. There’s atrocious killing going on in Sudan, too, but I don’t see any American officials tripping over themselves to stop it. That’s not because we’re indifferent or don’t want peace; it’s because the vital interests of the United States are not implicated by the killing. With other priorities pressing, there is a serious limit to what we can afford to do.
The national interests of the United States are to degrade the threat posed by our Russian enemy and to make clear that we will never accept — as in never formally endorse the results of — an aggressor state’s unprovoked invasion of another recognized nation, annexation of its territory, butchery of civilians, kidnapping of children, and rampant violations of the laws and customs of war.
I thought the Wall Street Journal’s editors put it well today:
Mr. Putin, an enemy of the United States, wants to subsume Ukraine as a free nation. Readers may think this states the obvious, but this basic truth is the starting point for any productive negotiation with Mr. Putin.
Understanding what you’re dealing with is the first step in grasping what your interests are. Putin is our enemy. He has a basket-case country, which means there are many pressure points to be exploited; and a formidable arsenal, which means we have a persistent vital interest in diminishing it.
Putin started this war. The massive killing suffered by his forces is a human tragedy but, from the perspective of American national security, it is the price he should pay and continue paying for his aggression and war crimes.
As for Ukraine, it is not our business to tell the Ukrainians that it is time for “peace” — for the killing to stop. They are the aggrieved party, and they are fighting because they still can and believe it is in their interest to do so. That is and must be their call.
It’s not President Trump’s territory that was attacked and seized, or his countrymen who’ve been brutalized. It’s Ukraine’s. They know very well that deaths are an unavoidable consequence of fighting; yet, factoring that in — in a wrenching way we can’t fathom because we’re not the victim — they continue to fight. It is for them to decide when, if ever, the killing has been so destructive that there is no upside in continuing to fight. In what conceivable way is that our decision? Because the administration is embarrassed that Putin continues to show himself as a barbarian when our president insists he’s a great leader that we — rather he — can work with?
On this calculation, it makes no difference whether it is practical for Ukraine to make the reclamation of its territory, including Crimea, a continuing war objective. They want to fight for their country, and they may well believe, prudently, that they will eventually strike a more favorable settlement with Russia if Putin understands he will continue being bled.
Moreover, because the interests of the United States are not the same as those of Ukraine, our government could decide, as things unfold, how much we are willing to expend to help Ukraine’s war effort. I have never been a big Ukraine fan, but as long as they’re game to keep degrading Putin’s forces and armaments, it’s a bargain for the United States: We have no boots on the ground, our enemy is sustaining ruinous casualties, we are making good on our prior commitments to Ukraine’s security (in reliance on which Kyiv gave up nukes and conventional weapons), and we are showing China and our allies that we understand our interests, back our friends, and thwart our enemies.
On the other hand, we are $36 trillion in debt, need to increase our military spending substantially, and have to show strength in the Near and Far East. What we are in a position to contribute to Ukraine’s war effort will fluctuate over time. To my mind, convincing Russia that we won’t let them win could be a lot less costly than cutting off Ukraine. The latter would embolden Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other rogue actors; over time, that will be a lot more expensive proposition for us to deal with.
But the point is that by supporting Ukraine, we wouldn’t necessarily commit to any particular level of support and we could, from moral high ground, continue to pressure Europe to step up. Meantime, there should be no more preening about how our top goal is to stop the killing when we aren’t the ones doing the dying. Ukrainians continue to be willing to fight and die for their country against our enemy. Our national interest is to help them.