As the third year of the Russo-Ukraine War continues, Ukraine is increasingly imperiled. Shoved off the front pages by the crises in the Middle East, there is mounting opposition in the United States to extending further aid. Its valiant resistance against a seemingly far more powerful fascist invader has been tainted by shake-ups in its military general staff, corruption scandals, criticisms of its battlefield strategy, and a 2023 counter-offensive that did not dislodge Russia from the territories it conquered. Even worse, Russia has launched a Northern offensive that has overrun numerous villages, caused 17,000 citizens of Vovchansk to flee, leaving 200-300 behind, and set its sights on Kharkov. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of buildings have been destroyed, Ukraine’s infrastructure is in tatters, public services are in disarray, its economy is a wreck, and the United Nations fears that 90% of its citizens could “freefall into poverty.” American officials put the number of Ukraine’s war casualties as somewhere between 120,000-131,000 with 31,000 dead, 3.7 million people are internally displaced, and 14.6 million require humanitarian assistance. Young men are fleeing the country, and Ukraine is short of recruits. Convicts have been conscripted into the military and the draft age has been lowered from 27 to 25.
The situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Russia has publicly expressed its readiness for a war of attrition, and Ukraine might not survive the year. Extremists within the Republican Party are adamant in their opposition to aid and a significant minority of Democrats have little sympathy with Ukraine’s plight. Right-wing extremists have inherited the xenophobic isolationism of the quasi-fascist “America First Movement” of the 1930s while the far Left believes that Russia’s invasion was an understandable response to NATO’s imperialist aims and Ukraine’s Western leanings. Imbued with a pacifist spirit, and skeptical about the United States’ geo-political ambitions, their views converge with those of reactionaries who insist that the nation cut its losses and stop throwing good money after bad. In the New York Times (April 13, 2024), Senator J.D. Vance (R-OHIO) insisted that the United States can supply only a fraction of Ukraine’s needs for ammunition, artillery, aerial bombs, drones, missies, and interceptors (The New York Times April 13, 2024). If President Joe Biden’s critics are correct, indeed, the impact of his $60 billion aid-package will prove minimal. Moreover, should he win the election of 2024, ex-President Donald Trump has already made it known that he will not “give a penny” to Ukraine. Its future is bleak and the United States might be facing the prospect of providing long-term financing for an ally doomed to inevitable defeat.
However, such pessimism is somewhat exaggerated. Ukraine is now bombing sites within Russia and, despite the fear of escalation by its allies, this will surely continue. Much of the military hardware promised Ukraine has not yet arrived and it may yet get the F-16 fighter jets for which it has pleaded. Furthermore, the United States is not alone in keeping Ukraine’s hopes alive. NATO has contributed $100 billion in 2023, another $100 billion will be sent over the next five years, while a consortium of investors is set to invest $15 billion to rebuild Ukraine after the war has ended.
Russia’s military badly mismanaged the war resulting in about 400,000 Russian casualties and, between January and April 2024, the death of 85,000 soldiers. For all the bluster, indeed, trench warfare is draining Russia’s finances and resources. The number of active soldiers has risen by 13% and the government is still drafting convicts. The Russian army has failed to capture Kyiv or the Donbass, and Ukraine still enjoys control over most of its territory. Russia also received a serious geo-political blow with Finland and Sweden’s decision to join NATO. In spite of its resilient economy, defense spending has skyrocketed, and enough analysts suggest that Russia can only sustain its war effort for another few years. Of course, Russia has more resources, personnel, and especially air power than Ukraine. Nevertheless, military strategy maintains that the invader must have at least a 3:1 advantage to overcome the defender at any given point of attack.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine is a safe bet to “win” this war and, most likely, it will not be won on the battlefield at all; indeed, both antagonists would benefit from a cease-fire. However, President Vladimir Putin has visions of recreating the Russia Empire and basing it in his quasi-fascist state. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has left himself little room to negotiate. He has also been heavy-handed in dealing with the rights of minorities and dissidents, and pushed elections into the future. However, Ukraine is clearly the aggrieved party. Its territory has been invaded; its sovereignty has been shattered; its citizens have suffered indiscriminate bombing and mass atrocities.
To believe that either government’s interests are in line with those of their citizens is naïve. Both presidents have staked their reputations on victory, and both have been disingenuous when talking about peace. Before entering into talks, Putin demands that Ukraine demilitarize, accept the “independence” of Luhansk and Donetsk, “de-nazify,” and recognize Russian rights to Crimea and the territories that it has already seized. As for Zelensky, he will not enter into negotiations unless Russian forces first leave Ukraine, accept restoration of its borders including control over Crimea, guarantee justice and reparations for victims of Russian war crimes, and provide a set of security guarantees. Neither side is showing good faith; indeed, both insist that their war aims be met prior to any dialogue, which would naturally make negotiations superfluous.
The future looks bleak. But there are a few dim signs of hope. Exchanges of prisoners have taken place, the Black Sea Grain Initiative has enabled Ukraine to export food and fertilizers, and back-channel discussions are continuing, Without some degree of good will on both sides, however, the current stalemate will continue and each side will go on celebrating its pyrrhic victories and lying about its defeats.
America’s national interest is served neither by providing ongoing and unconditional aid to Ukraine any more than by abruptly cutting it off. Support must be conditional on the steps that it takes toward peace. This means that appropriate riders should accompany each aid package. No settlement is possible without recognizing certain claims on both sides. Ukraine will probably need to withdraw its application to join NATO and, in exchange, receive accelerated access to join the European Union. It will also probably need to cede Crimea, which is over 80% Russian anyway, compromise on the Donbass, and maintain humanitarian corridors. Russia needs access to warm-water ports, and Western sanctions should be lifted in accordance with Russian measures to de-escalate the conflict. In the long run, moreover, international commissions will surely be required to monitor the peace, investigate human rights violations, create an international bank to secure investments, and manage a new Marshall Plan to rebuild Ukraine.
Peace hangs in the balance. Neither Ukraine nor Russia can afford many more mistakes. Russia’s hopes for a quick victory have vanished. It underestimated Ukraine’s resilience and the resolve of that besieged nation’s allies. Meanwhile, Ukraine overestimated the likelihood of Russia’s economic collapse and the legitimation crisis that the war would produce. Neither government seems ready to compromise and, under these circumstances, civil society in the two nations might be the place to start a dialogue. New proposals are necessary to pressure stubborn dealmakers and raise the level of public awareness and debate. This much is certain: the current intransigence of both governments serves the interest of neither.
*** Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University.
“Whither the War? Russia, Ukraine, and the United States” in Daily Kos (May 14, 2024)