Last week, President Donald Trump became concerned that Russian President Vladimir Putin was “tapping him along" and didn’t seem to be listening to his overtures to negotiate an end to the war. Shortly thereafter, the administration quietly green-lit $50 million in military aid to Ukraine that Congress had previously authorized, the first time this has been done in Trump’s administration.
This is a significant turnaround. For months, the Trump administration seemed to be operating under the presumption that it could flatter, bribe or cajole Putin into ending the war. This was never going to work. As historian Daniel Pipes has observed, “Wars usually end when failure causes one side to despair, when that side has abandoned its war aims and accepted defeat, and when that defeat has exhausted the will to fight.” Putin has not yet reached that point. Resultantly, Russia is not fighting a war of limited goals, but of annihilation.
Germany needed to be told twice, over the course of two World Wars, to change its ways. Russia, defeated once in the Cold War, also requires a second defeat.
Visiting the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city, was horrific and enlightening. It is not on the front lines, but it faces daily attacks on civilian infrastructure, including a big-box home improvement store, leading to 19 deaths. More recently, Russia hit a military hospital in Kharkiv, killing two.
Meanwhile, attacks on Kyiv surged last week, following attacks the previous week which killed 12. These attacks mirrored those I experienced while recently visiting Ukraine, several of which took place hours after Trump’s phone call with Putin last month. The city of Sumy also recently saw 36 killed and 119 wounded in an attack on churchgoers on Palm Sunday.
This is not the behavior of a nation that wants compromise.
Russia’s quest to end Ukraine as an independent nation is part of a deeply held strategic doctrine. Post-Cold War, Russia briefly appeared to be reforming, but fell prey to corruption, descending into what President Richard Nixon called a “new despotism,” leading to an old imperialism that now guides its foreign policy. Putin never gave up on the former Soviet Union’s expansionist aims.
Ukrainians understand this viscerally. Maria Mezentseva, a member of Parliament representing Kharkiv, explained her views clearly, telling me, ”We don’t need peace ... we need victory.” She shares this view with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has said, “We believe in victory. It’s impossible to believe in anything else.”
Putin has repeatedly claimed that there is no nation of Ukraine, that this is a Western fiction. This is a historically unsupportable claim. Putin has also explained that he learned as a youth that, “If you’re going to get into a fight, you throw the first punch.” This is indicative of a wider Russian strategy that British professor and historian Mark Galeotti calls a “precautionary assault approach,” which sees any neighbor not subject to its whims as a potential threat.
Russia expert Keir Giles said recently that ”NATO poses such a problem for Russia, not because they genuinely believe NATO is a hostile alliance that might attack them,” but because it “prevents them from attacking first.” Thus, conceding Ukraine to Russia would exacerbate, not solve, the problem of Russia’s aggression.
Russia being granted sovereignty over any part of Ukraine would strengthen Putin’s argument for further conquest of “Russkyie Mir” (Russian World), a post-Cold War concept which includes multiple other countries, including NATO countries. It would also inch Russia’s military even closer to NATO power centers like Poland and Germany. Russia’s “precautionary assault approach” would thus ensure it immediately felt threatened again.
There is a perception among too many that Russia will inevitably win this conflict. This does not jibe with reality.
The latest estimates of Russian war dead exceed 250,000, with more than 900,000 wounded. Russia has lost an estimated 14,000 armored vehicles since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. Russia’s interest rate is a punishing 21%. No military using civilian cars and relying on North Korean troops and armaments against a smaller foe can truly be healthy. Nor can Russia borrow from itself indefinitely to fund its war. The resources of America and our allies dwarf the resources of Russia. Britain’s economy alone is larger. Russia is seeking a political victory. It cannot win based on resources, provided Ukraine’s allies keep it supplied.
In the long run, this support can pay off financially as well. Last week, the U.S. and Ukraine reached an agreement on a joint venture to develop Ukrainian minerals, something Trump had wanted for months and, if Ukraine is victorious, could become a significant windfall for the U.S. Moreover, there is up to $350 billion in frozen Russian assets in European and U.S. banks. If Trump can convince Europe to allow the principle to be spent to repay Ukraine for the damages done, Zelensky has said he’d spend those funds on U.S. weapons.
Trump’s recent action is only a small step toward supporting a true victory for Ukraine. A lot more will happen on this front in the coming months, and Utah can play a central role. Newly-elected Sen. John Curtis is a strong supporter of assisting Ukraine, while Sen. Mike Lee takes one of the most dovish stances toward Russia in the Senate. Utah’s House delegation, is also split. Utahns who make themselves heard can have an outsized impact in encouraging a true defeat for Russia.
The cost of taming Russia need not be as catastrophic as what was needed to defeat Germany a second time. The payoff for a Russian defeat is not simply a free Ukraine, but a chastened Russia that will, eventually, have a chance of another lease on life.