The news has been filled with stories about the Trump Administration’s plans to bring about President Trump’s long stated goal of peace between Russia and Ukraine in recent weeks. In my opinion, as someone who is a firm supporter of Ukraine in defending themselves against Russia’s aggression, a lot of these stories all on all sides of the issue have been misleading, if not downright inaccurate. When emotions run high, perceptions of reality suffer. In trying to formulate in my own mind what I think the United States’s position should be visa vie Ukraine, I have tried to put my own personal desires aside and to look at it as objectively as I can.
Addressing some of these inaccuracies at the beginning is helpful. The first one has been repeated by President Trump himself where he has said in writing and in speeches multiple times that “millions and millions” have died in Ukraine. This simply is not true. If you combine both Russian and Ukrainian military deaths and Ukrainian civilian deaths, which far exceed Russian civilian deaths, the best estimates total somewhere around 300,000 deaths, with the majority of those killed being Russian soldiers.
The second inaccuracy, in my opinion, is that Ukraine cannot win. This is essentially the position Vice President JD Vance took in his famous op-ed in The New York Times before being chosen as President Trump’s running mate. Of course, the war is on-going, and defining what a “win” means is difficult at best, but Ukraine is certainly not losing now. Russia is trading an unsustainable amount of men and material for paltry amounts of ground gained. Long range Ukrainian drones are devastating Russia’s ability to continue their aggression, particularly by targeting Russian oil and gas facilities. The Russian navy has effectively been pushed out of the Black Sea and their presence in Syria and Transnistria, along with other areas, has been greatly lessened by the need to feed soldiers into the front lines in Ukraine. Ukraine has not won, but they are winning.
The third inaccuracy, and one which has been so much in the news the past week, is that the United States has announced that it is abandoning NATO, our European allies, and Ukraine. What actions, or inactions, the Trump Administration takes moving forward is known only within the Administration, and even there the plan of action is likely still being formulated, but the United States is not gifting Europe and Ukraine to Russia and is not abandoning our NATO allies.
What is the purpose of NATO?
A little understanding of the history of NATO is important here to understanding the current position of the United States, particularly the Trump Administration, in regards to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The United States initial interest in forming NATO was based on two related but distinct ideas: first, forming a military alliance that included England, France, and Germany, and second, forming a military alliance to confront Russia and the Russian dominated Communist Countries of Eastern Europe.
As to the first, when NATO was formed after World War II the United States had just completed the second of two European wars within the last thirty or so years with the primary belligerents being the England, France, Germany, and Russia. Those first three countries had a history of military conflicts going back centuries and the United States wanted to do all that could be done to avoid another. Having all three in the same military alliance seemed like the best bet to achieve this goal.
As to the second, at the end of World War II the Russian dominated Soviet Union overran much of Eastern Europe, conquering and installing Communist puppet governments in many areas, including in the roughly quarter of defeated Germany that the Russians occupied. The Communist Soviet Union had replaced Nazi Germany as the gravest threat to the United States’s interests in Europe and NATO was formed to counter that threat.
At the end of World War II, the United States was by far the greatest economic and military power in the world. The United States was the only major belligerent that was largely spared fighting on its homeland. Without the United States, Western Europe stood little chance against the combined forces of Russia and the Russian dominated East European Communist countries. With the United States included, the NATO alliance was roughly equal in military strength to Russia and Russian dominated Eastern Europe, the so-called Warsaw Pact.
When the Soviet Union finally disintegrated in 1991, the Russian’s grip on the non-Russian Soviet Republics and other East European countries lessened. Most of the peoples and countries formerly dominated by Russians made every effort to turn toward the west and away from who they knew as their former oppressor, Russia. In time, many of those countries and even former Soviet Republics joined NATO precisely because, just like England, France, and Germany, they wanted to be in a military alliance that would protect themselves from Russia. The United States did not need to beg or bribe these former allies of the Russians to join NATO. The Russians by their own behavior toward their supposed allies and neighbors motivated them to turn west and to NATO.
The original twelve countries that formed NATO in 1949 were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union the countries of West Germany, Greece, Spain, and Turkey, had all joined NATO. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the formerly communist countries and Soviet Republics of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, East Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, have all joined the NATO alliance. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, two other countries, Finland and Sweden, decided it was in their best interests to join NATO to protect themselves against Russian aggression.
Outside of the former Soviet Republic of Belarus, Russia now has no formal allies in all of Europe.
The European members of NATO are no longer at a disadvantage to the Russians. The combined GDP of just the four largest European members of NATO, thus Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, is $13.8 trillion, and far exceeds that of Russia, which is just $2.2 trillion. The combined population of just those four countries alone, 279 million, is also almost double Russia’s population of 144 million. This does not even account for the highly motivated and resourceful NATO countries bordering Russia and Belarus; Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
Unlike during the period of time when Russia dominated Eastern Europe, the European members of NATO are not overmatched and defenseless against today’s Russia. Add into this mix the non-NATO country of Ukraine, with the incredible spirit and courage they have shown in fighting Russia to a standstill on the ground in the Donbas, and the evidence seems clear that the only way that Russia can be victorious is a lack of will on the part of those most directly effected by an expansionist Russia, NATO’s European members.
When considering the level of support the United States versus the level of support other NATO countries should be giving Ukraine, the rational behind NATO supporting Ukraine in the first place is worth keeping in mind. NATO currently is primarily a deterrent against Russian aggression in Europe. Likewise, NATO support for Ukraine is meant to be a deterrent to Russian aggression against NATO’s European members. Russia is essentially now a land-based military, and a pretty poor one at that. Their air force and navy have proven to be minimally effective. Although Russia on paper has a large nuclear arsenal, if the effectiveness of the rest of their military in Ukraine is any indication, how effective Russia’s nuclear arsenal would be in a conflict with NATO is certainly open to debate. The NATO members best positioned to effectively and efficiently defend against Russian aggression in Europe, including in Ukraine, are those NATO members located in Europe.
The second-best reason to support Ukraine in defeating Russia’s aggression is to deter China from launching an invasion of Taiwan. A Russian victory in Ukraine would no doubt embolden China and a Russian defeat would no doubt help to deter China from attacking Taiwan. The only NATO country with the wherewithal to mount a serious deterrence to China attacking Taiwan is the United States. China has been building up their military at a prodigious pace. Whereas Russia’s military equipment is in many cases made up of quickly diminishing stocks of decades old Soviet tanks and armored vehicles, China has rapidly been increasing their inventory of modern weaponry. As horrendous as the fighting in Ukraine has been for the Ukrainian people, as disastrous as it would be for the people of Ukraine for Russia to be victorious, and as threatening as it would be for Russia’s near neighbors, an invasion of Taiwan by the Chinese would send the world into a protracted global economic catastrophe. Ukraine’s primary export is wheat and other food products. Very important for millions of the world’s poorest families, but theoretically replaceable. Taiwan is the world’s leader in the manufacture of semiconductors, which are in today’s economy irreplaceable. Pausing access to semiconductors, or even worse putting their access into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, would be a disaster for the whole world for decades to come.
Nothing I have written should suggest that the United States should not offer Ukraine more military aid, although I personally do not see a circumstance where the United States should send combat personnel to Ukraine. I would be hard pressed to argue to the parent of an 18–25-year-old soldier, of which the United States has many, that their child should be in a combat role in Ukraine when Ukrainian 18–25-year-olds are not conscripted into service. But providing Ukraine with excess military hardware, such as Bradley fighting vehicles, in greater numbers would quickly do Ukraine a world of good at minimal cost.
The Bradely is a Cold War era fighting vehicle specifically designed, manufactured, and acquired by the United States to counter Russian aggression in Europe. The United States has given Ukraine a little over 300 Bradleys so far which they have used to great advantage. In particular, unlike Soviet era fighting vehicles, the Bradley is very “survivable,” meaning it can take damage while still protecting the lives of the soldiers inside. The United States Army operates around 3,700 Bradleys and holds an additional 2,800 in storage and plans to acquire hundreds more upgraded Bradleys by the end of the decade before it is set to be replaced by a newer system. Giving the Ukrainians a couple hundred or more Bradleys, a weapon that is set to be replaced, so the Ukrainians can continue to effectively and efficiently diminish Russia’s ability to threaten our allies looks like a great bargain for the United States. There are likely other weapons in our inventory like the Bradley.
Another area in which the United States could benefit Ukraine while benefiting ourselves is by investing in Ukraine’s emergent drone industry. Ukraine is fast proving itself the world leader in the practical use of drone technology, in the air, in the sea, and on land, for military purposes. No one else has more first-hand experience in this field than the Ukrainians, in both using drones offensively and defending against drones. Ukraine has proven themselves quick learners and have demonstrated the ability to scale up production domestically. Developing a strategy to invest in Ukraine’s drone industry, whether on a governmental or private industry basis, would greatly benefit Ukraine today and the United States and our NATO allies in the future. Hopefully this is something that is already being done.
In the end, NATO’s European members should and must take the lead in defeating Russia in Ukraine, and they have the wherewithal to do it. The United States primary focus should and must be on deterring China from invading Taiwan, a task no other nation on earth has the wherewithal to accomplish.