Why America’s (“Phony”) War in Ukraine Bothers me

The war in Ukraine is anything but phony. Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are dying, millions of Ukrainians are being displaced from their homes, and Ukrainian cities and infrastructure are being destroyed. The leadership of Russia is solely responsible for all of the death and destruction. No one else.

Analogies with World War Two have come fast and thick. Putin is Hitler, Zelensky is Churchill. Certainly, the pairings are apt if one is looking for the worst villains and the bravest heroes.

In May 1940, at a dark hour for Britain in WW2, perhaps the darkest, Churchill addressed the British nation:

“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.

Back to my use of the word “phony.”  For America, what is our policy in the Ukrainian war? It is certainly not to wage war against Russia on land, air, or sea. We took that option off the table, because Russia can blow up the world. And our policy is certainly not victory at all costs.

We have sent Ukraine lots of weapons. That’s helped Ukraine repel the Russian invasion and avoid defeat. Still, a lot of Ukraine remains occupied by Russia.

We have issued far reaching economic sanctions, which has had the effect of helping Putin convince Russian citizens that the West seeks to destroy Russia. We have bandied about the idea of regime change and putting Putin on trial, but how we plan to accomplish this is a mystery wrapped in a riddle, etc.

To our speechwriters’ credit, we’ve wielded a world-class thesaurus in describing just how evil a guy Putin is and how brutal his invasion has been. But once you get past “evil” and “brutal,” well, there’s just not much more you can say. (I’ll pause here to pass around some glossy pictures, not for the faint of heart, of Russian evil and brutality).

So, then what is our goal? Clearly, we and our allies are enabling Ukraine to fight more effectively and longer. Is that the goal? Do we want Russia and Ukraine to bleed each other dry?

Are we teaching a morality lesson about one nation attacking another, and if so, does it only apply to Europe or will we apply it in 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? Do we have in mind certain longitudes and latitudes for our doctrine of zero tolerance for invasions?

Perhaps we think with enough weapons Ukraine on its own can defeat Russia. But do we really think Russia will surrender or instead do we think Russia will escalate the killing?

If Putin takes the issue of Ukraine as existential to Russia, as everyone seems to think, escalation seems nearly certain. At least that’s what the various relevant departments and officials of our government are telling us.

Churchill’s question, “You ask, what is our policy?” was a rhetorical one and he answered it fully.

My question is not rhetorical.

If I had to hazard a guess, our policy is to support Ukraine in its heroic fight and to root hard for them as they fill bucket after bucket with Ukrainian blood, Ukrainian toil, Ukrainian tears, and Ukrainian sweat.

You could say it’s up to the Ukrainians to choose how long to fight, and you’d be right. But they are making their decisions based at least in part on American encouragement and support.

And I don’t see anything in our actions that suggests we have a plan to end this war. Or even that we want to. And that is what bothers me.