America's Failure In Ukraine
In my first post, dated April 5th, 2022,1 I took a contrarian view about the war in Ukraine. What I wrote was very much against the then current spirit of confident enthusiasm for American involvement in the war and feverish obsession with winning it.
Three years ago in early 2022, America’s intervention in the war was overwhelmingly popular. We were leading the effort to rally the Western world in support of Ukraine and its charismatic and heroic president Volodymyr Zelensky. The initial Russian thrust to take Kyiv had failed. America was gleeful at Russia’s “embarrassing” military failure.
The storyline was irresistible. Putin was an evil James Bond villain, his scheme thwarted by Zelensky, a real hero leading his people in a fight for survival. I remember seeing people in New York wearing Zelensky’s trademark olive t-shirt as one way to express solidarity. Performances by Russian artists were being banned. That Russia must be punished and not rewarded for the invasion was the foremost issue of the 21st Century.
In December 2022, Zelensky received a standing ovation from Congress
Our long wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan had become so unpopular and had ended with no good answers to the question of why we had sacrificed so much blood and treasure. Here at last was a necessary war with a retro-enemy on whom we could inflict pain using soldiers not from America but from Ukraine.
But I was alarmed at the fervor for a number of reasons:
I didn’t understand our strategy for victory.
I understood that Russia considered Ukraine an existential issue, and so I expected that the longer the war continued, the more it would escalate and the more tragic would be the consequences for the Ukrainian people.
We were fighting the war with money; the Ukrainians were fighting the war with lives. It seemed spurious for the American public to adopt it as “our” war.
It’s hard to recall just how much the war in Ukraine dominated our media and our attention back then. Hard to remember how fashionable it was to cheer every Russian setback as if we were watching a sporting event. The yellow and blue colors of the Ukrainian Flag were everywhere.
Then there were the interactive maps and the videos of the weaponry. But it was no game. Human beings on both sides were being mutilated, violated, and turned into corpses.
Multiply the pain on Zelensky’s face by a million-fold.
What I wrote in April 2022
I noted that the World War II analogies had come fast and thick. Putin as Hitler, Zelensky as Churchill. I quoted Churchill speaking in May 1940, at a dark hour for Britain in World War II, perhaps the darkest.
“You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs—Victory in spite of all terror—Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.”
Stirring words.
I wondered what the American policy was in the Ukrainian war. It was certainly not to wage war against Russia on land, air, and sea. We took that option off the table because Russia could blow up the world. And our policy was certainly not victory at all costs.
We sent Ukraine lots of weapons. That helped Ukraine repel the Russian invasion and avoid defeat. Still, a lot of Ukraine remained occupied by Russia.
We issued far-reaching economic sanctions, which had the effect of helping Putin convince Russian citizens that the West was seeking to destroy Russia. We bandied about the idea of regime change and putting Putin on trial, but how we planned to accomplish this was a mystery wrapped in a riddle, etc.
To the credit of Biden’s speechwriters, we wielded a world-class thesaurus in describing just how evil a guy Putin was and how brutal his invasion had been. But once you got past “evil” and “brutal,” well, there wasn’t much more you could say.
What was our goal? Clearly, we and our allies were enabling Ukraine to fight more effectively and longer. Was that the goal? Did we want Russia and Ukraine to bleed each other dry? To support Ukraine in its heroic fight and to root hard for them as they filled bucket after bucket with Ukrainian blood, Ukrainian toil, Ukrainian tears, and Ukrainian sweat.
Were we teaching a morality lesson about one nation attacking another, and if so, did it only apply to Europe, or would we apply it to other continents as well? And did the Russian invasions of Georgia, Crimea, and the Donbas happen too far to the east for us to get into gear? Did we have in mind certain longitudes and latitudes for our doctrine of zero tolerance for invasions?
Perhaps we thought that with enough weapons, Ukraine on its own could defeat Russia. But did we really think Russia would surrender, or instead was it obvious that Russia would escalate the killing?
We were saying that it was up to the Ukrainians alone to choose how long to fight. But they were making that decision based on American pledges of unwavering support.
So our statement that it was Ukraine’s decision was false. It was the sort of lie made more insidious by its subtle nature.
I didn’t see anything in our actions that suggested we had a plan to end the war. Or even that we wanted to. And that bothered me a lot.
American blunders
As I wrote in my post three years ago, it was Russia/Putin that pulled the trigger to start the war. But one doesn’t have to absolve Russia/Putin of any blame to still think that America blundered with horrible consequences.
Before the war began, a pledge to defer Ukraine’s membership in NATO might have led to a diplomatic solution. That solution was not attempted because the Biden administration was afraid of being accused of appeasement. 2
Before the war began, the public did not know the extent to which American intelligence forces had been cooperating with Ukrainian intelligence forces against Russia, making us de facto allies. For many years before the war, the CIA was closely involved in Ukraine’s shadow war with Russia, including assisting with assassinations of Russian commanders. 3
It also would have appeared to Russia that America and Ukraine were de jure allies based on the November 10th, 2021 Charter on Strategic Partnership between the U.S. and Ukraine. The Charter reads like a treaty aimed at Russia. That document was publicly released by the State Department but received scant publicity then or since. 4
As a country, we still haven’t come to grips with the possibility that America pursued the wrong policy before the war started. And then pursued the wrong policy again by not trying to negotiate a peace after the initial phase of the war.
So the war has grinded on for three more years, and every day has brought more destruction and death, more pain and suffering.
Look at us now
Trump “dressing down” Zelensky in the Oval Office February 2025
Now America is telling Ukraine it must allow Russia to keep Crimea and all the other occupied Ukrainian territory. And that Ukraine must agree never to join NATO. Otherwise, America is no longer interested in helping negotiate a peace.
Well, if that hard stance against Ukraine stops the bloodshed, then that’s an outcome preferable to the war grinding on with no end in sight. And perhaps it’s the least bad realistic outcome even if it’s unjust.
I think of all the people killed in this war. A war that might have been prevented or at least shortened when it became evident that neither side would achieve their war aims.
So many dead who may have died in vain.
As to those dead––soldiers and civilians––I think of this poignant quote from Hilary Mantel’s Cromwell trilogy.
“You can persuade the [living] to think again, but you cannot remake your reputation with the dead.”
We misled Ukraine into thinking that we would support them until they achieved a victory that was unrealistic. In time we may make amends to the Ukrainian people who survived. But we can never make amends to the dead.
Question for the comments: If the New York Times was devoted to covering your life, what would have been the headline three years ago and what would the headline be today?
My answer :
Three years ago:
Roberts Thinks Of Retiring From Finance; Vows Never To Attempt Another Novel
Today:
With Both A Substack and A Novel in Progress, Roberts Doubles Down On Writing
Why America’s (“Phony”) War In Ukraine Bothers Me
I had fifteen subscribers—family and friends who were given no choice. Perhaps home has become the place where people have to subscribe when you start a Substack.
“U.S. and NATO reject Russian demand that alliance not admit new members”
PBS article on January 7th, 2022.
“The Spy War“ New York Times February, 2024.
Wow, David, are you wrong. Have you forgotten the atrocities that Russia perpetrated on the areas they occupied, even briefly? The rapes, the murders, the kidnapping of children? Are you wishing that on the rest of the country? Should we have allowed Hitler to keep Poland, Czechoslovakia...and France...because continuing the war would have resulted in horrific bloodshed? It is not and was not our decision whether Ukraine keeps fighting. It is theirs. Always was. Our decision is simply whether or not we choose to help the weak fight the strong, the victim defend itself against the aggressor. We made the decision to help rather than turn our backs. Ukraine is fighting not only for its life, but also for its national honor. I'm glad we did soil ours and lament that we may do so now.
Agree there was never a path to victory. But the goal of our involvement in Ukraine always seemed pretty clear to me: discourage or forestall Putin’s pledge to reconstitute the Russian Empire. The trouble with the “provocation” argument is that it deprives threatened countries of their own agency, and overstates America’s centrality. We did not set out to expand NATO. Countries begged to join out of legitimate fear, no?