Not doing immediately what the West finds itself doing eventually is not a strategy for victory.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of the Watergate crisis half a century ago words to this effect: “What will come out eventually should come out immediately.”
Fifty years later, for the Ukraine crisis, we would rephrase this: What must be done eventually should be done immediately.
The West has done the opposite: Not doing immediately, lest it exacerbate the situation, what it ends up doing eventually, too late to have the intended effect.
Afraid to offend or embolden Vladimir Putin, the West punishes his previous offense, too late to stop his next one. The West gets behind and stays behind.
When Putin began to station thousands of Russian troops on Ukraine’s borders, the West questioned Putin. This did notstop Putin from increasing his troop build-up. Then, in response to the build-up, the West did nothing militarily but engaged in intense diplomacy. This did not stop Putin for preparing for all out war, as he played the diplomatic game. Then, in response to Putin’s first steps in the war — declaring two rebellious regions in Ukraine “independent states,” the West imposed minimal sanctions. These did not stop Putin from his invasion of Ukraine. Then, the West imposed massive sanctions. These did not stop either Putin’s invasion or his invocation of the nuclear threat.
The West has been reactive, not proactive. Each response of the West has been commensurate to Putin’s previous offense, not to his present one. Each response of the West has been too late to deter Putin’s next, larger offense.
But, one might ask, how was the West supposed to know Putin’s end game in Ukraine? Could anyone predict that Putin would invade? Was it not prudent for the West to act with restraint in its initial responses to Putin’s recent aggressive moves?
These questions appear reasonable only to those asleep to Putin’s approach to Ukraine from the moment he took power in 2000. However reasonable Putin might have seemed on other issues, his pattern of being one step ahead on Ukraine did not begin with his marshalling Russian troops on Ukraine’s border last fall, or even with his annexation of Crimea in 2014 — the blatant aggression in response to which the West did nothing. Putin’s pattern on Ukrainegoes way back to the emergence of Ukraine as an independent country. It was rooted in close linguistic and cultural ties with Russia, yes; but fiercely desiring political independence. In response to that desire, Putin encouraged his intermittent proxies in Ukraine to suppress this desire with violence, and declared his intent to take Ukraine into Russia.
And so the violent pattern continues to this day — to which we add the proviso that we hope to be wrong by the time this appears in print. As of this writing, Putin keeps upping the ante, and the West keeps responding to his last offense, not his current one. With Putin rattling the nuclear saber and threatening a wider war, the West’s commensurate options are:
• regime change in Moscow, whether directly or via the the infliction of the severe economic pain on Putin’s oligarchic supporters that President Biden promised in his State of the Union;
• significantly more extensive military aid to Ukraine, quantitative and qualitative.
The most effective qualitative military step would be to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Against this possibility, Putin raises his threat level. Here we go again: not doing immediately what will be done eventually. Make no mistake, there will be an eventuality. It may take the form of a no fly zone, or of dramatically increased weapon supplies, or of military intervention to create humanitarian corridors. It is long overdue for the West to get out from behind and rob Putin of his control of the “military narrative.”
Heroic Ukrainians and heroic volunteers from around the world fight Russia’s overwhelming force, which, for all of its surprising weakness, remains the more formidable force. It is not realistic to expect Ukraine to triumph short of dramatic, increased military aid to Ukraine. Zelensky asks for planes, give him planes. Zelensky asks for ammunition, give him ammunition. Putin wants to sustain his energy exports to the West, deny them — a step suggested by Colorado’s Sen. Hickenlooper and others and now agreed to by President Biden. The idea that the West’s sheer fury against Putin’s blatant aggression will save Ukraine is not realistic.
True enough, the sanctions against Russia are most impressive for the Western unity behind them, for their severity and, most important, for the recognition that they cannot supplant the need for Europe to rebuild its military defenses. But short of a militarily strong Europe, a longer-term goal, Ukraine needs shorter-term help.
Heroes like Zelensky and his fellow Ukrainians do not come around every day. The West must provide them the necessary military aid before it is too late for them — and too late for us. If Putin wins this one, President Biden will have more opportunity than he ever wished to follow through on his promise to marshall the military forces of NATO in direct confrontation with Vladimir Putin.
Copyright © 2022 by the Intermountain Jewish News
