What’s Going on in Ukraine Right Now?
- Heavy Fighting in Eastern Ukraine: Intense battles rage on in the Donbas region, especially around Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia makes small gains near Kupyansk and Vovchansk, aiming to push Ukrainian forces back.
- Ukraine Strikes Back: Ukraine targets Russian positions, including a major hit on the Novolipetsk Metallurgical Plant in Lipetsk Oblast.
- Global Aid: Since February 2022, 50 countries have sent over $100 billion in aid to Ukraine. Contributors include the EU, G7, Australia, South Korea, Turkey, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, China, Taiwan, India, and Iceland.
- Casualties: As of June 2024, 3,642 Russian officers and 3,997 Ukrainian officers have been killed.
- New Defense Minister in Russia: In May, Putin appointed Andrei Belousov as the new Defense Minister to improve relations with military bloggers and control the war narrative.
- Ukraine’s Defense Needs: Ukraine faces a critical shortage of air defense missiles. President Zelensky urges international partners for more long-range weapons and air defenses at the Ukraine Recovery Conference.
How did we get here?
- Annexation of Crimea: In 2014, Russia took over Crimea and backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, sparking tensions and setting the stage for future conflicts.
- Military Drills: In 2021, Russia’s military drills near Ukraine’s border alarmed many about a possible invasion.
- The Speech: On February 24, 2022, Putin announced a “special military operation” in Ukraine to “demilitarize and denazify” the country.
- The International Stage: Some experts argue that the U.S.’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 might have encouraged Putin. Some say it showed Western weakness, created a power vacuum, and shifted global attention, giving Russia a chance to act on its ambitions in Ukraine without strong pushback. Other experts argue that Putin’s invasion plans were already in motion long before the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. They believe his decision was rooted in a strategic goal to reassert Russian influence in the region, and the chaotic U.S. exit did not significantly alter his intentions or plans for Ukraine.
- My Own Thoughts: I believe that while the withdrawal didn’t change Putin’s ultimate decision to invade, it may have provided a perceived window of opportunity to act with reduced risk of immediate and strong international retaliation.=
- Ukrainian Resistance: Russian forces faced tough resistance from Ukrainian troops and volunteers, slowing their advance. In mid-2023, Ukraine launched a major counteroffensive, regaining territory in Kharkiv and Kherson, showcasing their resilience and strategy.
What is the U.S’s role and why does it matter?
Military Aid: The U.S. has supplied billions of dollars in military aid ($107 billion in total directly allocated to the Ukrainian government), including advanced weaponry like Javelin anti-tank missiles and HIMARS rocket systems.
Economic Sanctions:
- The U.S. froze $5 billion of the Russian central bank’s assets held in the U.S. and restricted dealings with 80% of Russian banking sector assets.
- Over 2,500 individuals and entities have been added to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list.
- The U.S. banned imports of Russian crude oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal and restricted exports of high-tech goods to Russia, including semiconductors and aircraft equipment.
- Over 600 targets linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex have been sanctioned.
Alliances:
- On June 13th, 2024, President Biden and Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a ten-year U.S.-Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement aiming to build and maintain Ukraine’s defense capabilities, enhance intelligence sharing, and accelerate Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration.
- The U.S. has led the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a coalition of about 50 countries coordinating military assistance. This group includes all 32 NATO member states and around 25 other countries.
Why This Matters:
- U.S. support for Ukraine is framed as a defense of democratic principles against authoritarianism. By supporting Ukraine, the U.S. actively counters Russian influence in Eastern Europe and beyond. However, there’s a major political debate over whether the U.S. should continue its involvement and aid given the strenuous war that has no clear victory in sight.
Trump’s Perspective?
- Imagine a school group project where one student feels like he’s doing all the hard work and heavy lifting. He’s been up late, handling the presentation and most of the research, while the other members of the group aren’t contributing as much.
- Trump believes it’s time for the other members to pitch in more and share the workload equally. This reflects his view on U.S. support for Ukraine: he thinks the U.S. shouldn’t continue to bear the burden and wants NATO and EU allies to step up.
- Trump’s stance can be summed up by his statement: “Look, if they’re not going to pay, we’re not going to protect, OK?”
- At a rally in Detroit, Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, calling him “the greatest salesman of all time” for Kyiv’s efforts to secure U.S. support against Russian aggression.
- If reelected, Trump plans to cut U.S. aid to Ukraine and focus on a more assertive diplomatic approach, pressuring both Ukraine and Russia to negotiate.
- He believes that he could easily leverage his “bromance” with Putin and broker a peace deal in no time, 24 hours to be precise.
How Could a Trump Administration Change War Dynamics?
- If Trump is elected and cuts U.S. aid, Ukraine might seek help from other NATO allies.
- Ukraine could face obstacles in getting this support and struggle more against Russian aggression. U.S. aid has been crucial to Ukraine’s success, with America leading in international support.
- Shifting responsibility to NATO members might rebalance military and political power in Europe, strengthening NATO and the EU’s roles.
- Trump’s strategy might pressure Ukraine to make concessions, risking its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- A Trump administration would likely adopt a more isolationist foreign policy, similar to his first term. This could embolden adversaries like China, which has increased its involvement in conflicts like Syria and aims to fill the U.S. void and enhance its global influence on their road to hegemony.
Should Biden Push for a Settlement now?
The For
- Recent Russian advancements in eastern Ukraine are causing worry among U.S. officials about the likelihood of a decisive Ukrainian victory as the war drags on. A settlement might be the best course of action given the prolonged conflict with no clear end in sight and could help alleviate the immense human suffering.
- Prolonged conflict is straining global economies, especially with disruptions in grain and energy supplies. A settlement could ease these economic pressures and stabilize markets.
- Nearly 70% of Americans favor negotiations to end the conflict, indicating strong domestic support for a diplomatic resolution.
The Against
- A settlement might require Ukraine to make concessions that undermine its sovereignty and territorial integrity, potentially rewarding Russian aggression. However, President Zelensky and many Ukrainians insist on the withdrawal of all Russian forces before any settlement, prioritizing Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty over a compromised peace.
- Pushing Ukraine to negotiate might be seen as giving in to Russian aggression, potentially encouraging further hostile actions by Russia and undermining international law.
- Some experts argue that now is not the time to push for a settlement as it would be premature given the status of the war. They argue that Ukraine must enter a settlement from a position of power, which is currently not clear. A premature settlement could leave Ukraine vulnerable to future aggression, as Russia might retain strategic territories and regroup for future attacks.
The Bottom Line
The debate over U.S. involvement in the War in Ukraine exemplifies a larger discussion about America’s global role.
- Central to this debate is whether the U.S. should continue to engage in international conflicts and uphold its longstanding commitment to defending democracy worldwide, regardless of the cost.
- Supporters say yes, believing America should continue to lead the charge for global democracy. They argue it’s crucial to flex our muscles, showing strength to deter bad guys and support our friends, even if it means upping military spending.
- On the flip side, critics push for a more stay-at-home approach. They think the U.S. should focus on fixing issues at home and step back from being the world’s policeman. They point out that our past adventures abroad have often led to more chaos and less stability.