Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2022-03-24-at-3.19.38-pm

Lawmakers deploy 'Munich' trope to push dangerously hawkish Ukraine resolutions

Bipartisan measures in House and Senate would ensure NATO membership and that 'victory' means restoration of 1991 borders.

Analysis | Europe

A bipartisan group of hawks in Congress announced a new resolution on Tuesday that calls for the U.S. to seek the restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders and to bring Ukraine into NATO after the war is over. 

Reps. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) are co-sponsoring what they call the Ukrainian Victory Resolution, and have been framing it, perhaps not surprisingly, with the lofty rhetoric of World War II. So far the bill has 18 bipartisan co-sponsors.

“We must not repeat the error of Sept. 1, 1939,” Wilson told Yahoo News, referencing what is now held by many as the “Munich moment” and appeasement of Adolf Hitler before the Nazi invasion of Poland.

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have also introduced their own, similar resolution in the Senate. This comes after three Senators and 16 House Republicans last week sent a letter to President Biden saying they would not support any new Ukraine aid if it was not paired with a clear diplomatic strategy to end the war.

This week's resolutions are sure to stir debate over the extent of U.S. Ukraine policy and support ahead of an expected Ukrainian counteroffensive this spring. Furthermore, a signal from Congress that the U.S. is fully behind the retaking of Crimea and the Donbas would be exactly what the Ukrainian government wants to hear, but it is a dangerous message to send when Ukraine lacks the ability to achieve those goals on the ground. 

In fact, setting overly ambitious, unrealistic goals as the definition of “victory" seems more likely to blow up in the faces of both Washington and Kyiv. Instead of backing war aims that promise to prolong the conflict, the U.S. should be encouraging Ukraine to settle for a return to the pre-2022 lines. 

It remains an open question whether Ukrainian forces will be able to make any significant advances this year. According to the Discord leaks, the Pentagon expects that the war will be a stalemate for the rest of 2023. It is doubtful that Ukraine will be able to recapture any of the territories lost to Russia in 2014, and it is irresponsible to endorse those goals when that promises to drag out the war much longer to no one’s benefit. 

Another danger is that endorsing these goals could draw the U.S. closer to direct intervention as a means of achieving them. There is also the risk that attempting to recapture Crimea could provoke Russian escalation, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.

Thomas Meaney of the Max Planck Society in Germany  warned several weeks ago that Ukraine could only achieve “complete victory” with direct U.S. and NATO involvement in the war: “Absent NATO involvement, the Ukrainian Army can hold the line and regain ground, as it has done in Kharkiv and Kherson, but complete victory is very nearly impossible.”

While top Ukrainian officials insist that they aren’t demanding that U.S. and allied troops fight for them, that is likely what would be required to fully recapture all lost Ukrainian territories. Since the U.S. and its allies must not enter the war directly, no Western governments should be encouraging Ukraine to seek its most ambitious goals.

Ambitious war aims guarantee a long war, and a long war is not in U.S. interests. The Rand Corporation’s Samuel Charap and Miranda Priebe concluded at the end of their paper on this question, “Territorial control, although immensely important to Ukraine, is not the most important dimension of the war's future for the United States. We conclude that, in addition to averting possible escalation to a Russia-NATO war or Russian nuclear use, avoiding a long war is also a higher priority for the United States than facilitating significantly more Ukrainian territorial control.” U.S. and Ukrainian interests aren’t identical, and U.S. policy should reflect that. The “victory” resolution ignores this. 

It is understandable that the Ukrainian government wishes to reverse all Russian territorial gains, but that has to be weighed against the likely costs that pursuing those goals will incur. The U.S. needs to be cautioning Ukraine against riskier courses of action that could lead to major defeats and possible military collapse. It would hardly help Ukraine’s cause to cheer them on in pursuit of an impossible goal and then see it backfire on them.

The good news is that the resolutions are symbolic and can’t force the Biden administration to do anything, but they will still put pressure on the administration to endorse the same unrealistic goals and it could box Biden in politically. If passed, they will bolster hardliners in Washington and Kyiv and encourage them to increase demands on the U.S. and its allies. Egging on hardliners is the opposite of what the U.S. needs to be doing. 

If the Ukrainian government is going to accept settling for less than the full recapture of lost territories, the U.S. will have to use pressure and it will have to be seen using that pressure on Kyiv. As the Quincy Institute’s Anatol Lieven explained in an article earlier this month, “All the Ukrainian analysts with whom I spoke agreed that only intense public pressure from Washington could allow Zelensky to agree to a territorial compromise—even if Zelensky himself felt compelled to respond to the pressure in public with bitter protest.”

It remains to be seen if the Biden administration is willing to endure the political backlash that any effort to pressure Ukraine would trigger, but that is what will need to happen to provide the Ukrainian government with cover to consider something less than “complete” victory.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky delivers remarks to U.S. Congress, March 16, 2022. (CSPAN/screenshot)
Analysis | Europe
||
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: How close were Russia and Ukraine to a deal in 2022?

QiOSK

The RAND corporation’s Samuel Charap and Johns Hopkins University professor Sergey Radchenko published a detailed timeline and analysis of the talks between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators just after the Russian invasion in February 2022 that could have brought the war to an end just weeks after it had begun.

Much of the piece confirms or elucidates parts of the narrative that had previously been reported. In the spring of 2022, the two sides appeared relatively close to a deal, one that, according to the authors, would “have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU.”

keep readingShow less
Blinken ignores State recommendation to sanction Israeli units: Report
L-R: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after their meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem, on Monday, January 30, 2023. DEBBIE HILL/Pool via REUTERS

Blinken ignores State recommendation to sanction Israeli units: Report

QiOSK

State Department leadership is ignoring a recommendation from an internal panel to stop giving weapons to several Israeli military and police units due to credible allegations of serious human rights abuses, according to a major new report from ProPublica.

The alleged violations, which occurred before the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, include extrajudicial killings, sexual assault of a detainee, and leaving an elderly Palestinian man to die after handcuffing and gagging him. Secretary of State Antony Blinken received the recommendation in December but has yet to take action to prevent the units involved from receiving American weapons.

keep readingShow less
What will NATO do with its giant Arctic footprint?

US Army Special Forces soldiers assigned to 10th Special Forces Group move out on skis into the Swedish Arctic on 23 February 2022. (NATO)

What will NATO do with its giant Arctic footprint?

Global Crises

As NATO commemorated its 75th anniversary this month, the direction of the alliance’s posture toward the Arctic region has been called into question.

The recent accession of Sweden means that seven of eight of the world’s Arctic nations fall under NATO’s security umbrella, with Russia being the outlier. While some analysts see the addition of Sweden and Finland as an opportunity for NATO to “increase its footprint” and “deter Russia,” the last thing the alliance needs is to scour for another avenue for confrontation with Russia.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest