The Case for Supporting a Total Ukrainian Victory

January 29th, 2023

I was recently watching Peaky Blinders season 6. In episode 2, Tommy Shelby made an interesting comment. When asked how he can support fascism while being a socialist, Tommy replies “…Since I’ve been in politics, I’ve learned the line doesn’t go out from the middle to the left or right, it’s just one circle. If you go far enough left, you’ll meet someone who has gone far enough right.” The far left and far right in America have a lot more in common than they would like to admit. How each arrived to the conclusion that the war in Ukraine is bad for America couldn’t be more opposite, but as Mr. Shelby so eloquently explained, they ended up in the same place.

The left has some delusional utopian views of the world, which rules out the possibility of someone behaving as irrationally and evil as Russian President Vladimir Putin. The far right, on the other hand, seem to support Putin because… he’s against homosexuality? He’s a symbol of Christian virtue and orthodoxy? They first held Trump as that symbol, now Putin, and next I’ll wager Lucifer.

Supporting Russia today as an American is downright foolish and unpatriotic, to put it lightly. To do so immediately shows incredible ignorance about Russian views towards our country. Almost everyday, Russian state TV brazenly claims they can wipe the United States off the map. They rail against our Nazi tendencies and neo-liberal behavior (not at all contradictory, but OK), which in turn justifies their genocidal proclamations. You just need to have one listen to understand Russia’s position towards the US and know Putin’s regime needs to be looked at as an enemy, not a symbol of conservatism. Until Putin and his supporters are gone, they cannot be looked at any other way.

President Putin was born in raised during the Cold War, and came to power off the back of the Soviet Union’s collapse. He was taught to despise the West; we are the ultimate enemy. The dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent loss of stature and power Russia experienced, scarred Putin. Claiming the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst tragedy of the 20th century, Putin’s goal is to reestablish Russia as a force to be reckoned with, reasserting itself as a respected yet feared world leader. To him, the United States continues to hold Russia back, and will do anything to curb America’s influence around the world.

Russia has shown it cannot be trusted. The amount of broken promises and lies the past decade exceeds even that of the Iranian regime. After changing the casus belli for this war several times, they’ve now settled on “destroying Satan” and “protecting Russian speakers”. If that’s the case, is the Kremlin disavowing their previous justifications, such as stopping NATO expansion (NATO would never have accepted Ukraine, plus Putin declared he didn’t care Sweden and Finland joined), denazifying Ukraine (led by a Jewish president), and stopping the making of nuclear/chemical weapons (LOL)? They’ve invaded Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, and now all of Ukraine after repeatedly denying they would. Where do Putin’s ambitions stop, and at what horrible cost?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, several eastern European nations have joined NATO, or at least requested to do so. They feared being under Russian influence again, and jumped at the chance that the United States and other western powerhouses would protect them.

All this reasoning is perfectly sound and logical, which is why the Senate nearly unanimously voted yes for Sweden and Finland to join. I say almost unanimously, as Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) was the lone dissenting voice. A moment to talk about him now.

Senator Josh Hawley is an interesting case to me. For someone supposedly so smart and proficient at his profession (law), in reality he comes across as foolish and unprepared. It seems like a child writes his speeches, not a lawyer, as anyone can poke holes in his arguments. I doubt populism can last long with him as one of its leaders; his isolationist views are often contradictory and devoid of logic. Thankfully, Republican senators, such as Sen Tom Cotton (R-Ark), quickly and easily silenced him on the issue of NATO expansion. The less people like him who are elected to positions of power, the better.

I am definitely not saying we should throw money at Ukraine – we don’t want any taxpayer funds to be wasted or siphoned off. House Majority Puppet Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca) is correct when saying the US shouldn’t write a blank check. Unfortunately, Ukraine doesn’t have the most spotless corruption history. To be clear – I’m all for implementing the appropriate checks and balances when giving aid to the country. I am, however, completely behind the bipartisan push to increase military aid. Boris Johnson’s recent op-ed in the WSJ is a great read on why the only way for this war to end is full Ukrainian victory. It seems most elected representatives agree, even if the loudest of them don’t.

What would total Ukrainian victory mean for Russia, Putin, and by extension, the United States?

A total victory for Ukraine would mean democracy and freedom triumph. Other would-be conquerors would think twice before initiating an armed conflict, as they saw the West unify in opposition.

For the United States, a total Ukrainian victory would bring a multitude of great things. First, we would gain an important ally with the incredible potential to become an economic, technological, and military powerhouse in the region. They obviously would remember our support, cementing close relations for potentially generations.

The most important, but least talked about consequence of a total Ukrainian victory, is the increased global standing of the United States, and a possible blow to China’s ambitions. As pointed out above, it is unlikely to me that Putin would stay in power if Ukraine wins. If he goes, there could be a shift in Russian thinking, and cooperation with the West. The next leader would have less anti-western views, and hold China in a less-positive light. Russia will realize we actually don’t want any of their territory, we don’t want the destruction of their people or state, and stop viewing us in a cold-war lens. As China’s power grows, they will look to influence their neighbors more, many of whom are in Russia’s backyard. The first signs of tension were on display in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in September, when Putin was overtly rebuked by multiple nations, including China and India. China, in a clear rebuke of Russia, claimed they will protect Kazakhstan’s independence.

Currently, Russia’s and China’s “friendship” is more akin to a marriage of convenience. Both oppose the US-led global order, but I imagine that won’t last for long. If there is regime change in Russia, my hope is that they’ll realize just how much of a junior partner they would be, and how their decisions would be made by men in Beijing, and not Moscow. In looking back in history, when have two superpowers, who share a large border and vie for influence in satellite countries, ever remained allies for long?

Senator Hawley is right, the United States should look to increasingly counter China’s rising ambitions. What better way than to significantly weaken its biggest ally?

The United States and Europe must supply Ukraine with its best weapons and capabilities as soon as possible. It is unwise to drag this war longer than it needs to be. By supporting Ukraine with these supplies sooner rather than later, the longevity risk decreases, and the global standing of the United States increases.