We are now more than a year into Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. With massive losses on both sides, this conflict has become a war of attrition with seemingly no end in sight. The strategic effects have reverberated across Europe and the world. The Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons dislodged from the war has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis that already existed in Europe stemming from migrants from Syria and other parts of the Middle East. This naked Russian aggression has also disrupted the global economy, and although thankfully it has not yet happened, still threatens to escalate into a regional, possibly even a world war, with potentially cataclysmic consequences for all of humankind, especially if nuclear weapons are used.
On the current path, more danger awaits the U.S. and the West. If we maintain the same strategic assumptions, all of our options are wanting. On the one hand, if we escalate to facilitate a Ukrainian victory, we run the risk of a strategic Russian response against NATO, possibly even the United States. At that point China could also directly join the war in an Axis that could potentially also include North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela. On the other hand, a decisive Russian victory over Ukraine would be very destabilizing for the West, undermining the rules of the current international order. That must be unacceptable to us. That leaves a potential negotiated settlement. However, the current constructs considered also appear fraught with strategic peril as they include Ukraine ceding yet more territory beyond Crimea to Russia further eroding deterrence without any guarantees that Russia wouldn’t resume the military offensive in the future.
It’s clear to me we need fresh thinking, and ultimately, a strategic game-changer. For that to occur, the United States must take a leading role. To fully consider this option, as hard as it is, we must set aside ideologies, attempt to deescalate the current situation, and then do the hard work to mediate differences, find common interests, and reach a sustainable longer-term arrangement for all the nations of Europe.
To start, let’s recognize up front that the real civilizational challenge for Europe is China.
China has the intent, and as this century unfolds, the emerging capacity (both economically and militarily) to dominate the world. This threatening trajectory is bolstered by the Chinese Communist Party and its leader Xi Jinping, who have formidable domestic surveillance and policing capacity to crush internal dissent and effectuate their will on the Chinese people, regardless of how unpopular it may become. Given that, we can expect that China will continue to pursue its “One Belt, One Road” comprehensive campaign to extend Chinese influence over the entire world.
Despite this apparent existential threat, the United States has failed to rally Europe, potentially our strongest partners in this struggle, to deter and positively shape a rising China. To the contrary, we have further alienated Russia and pushed her towards China, and that has contributed to the current crisis we are witnessing.
To be clear, during his over two-decade tenure, Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin has perpetrated evil on both the Russian people and Russia’s neighbors, and this unjustified attack on Ukraine is yet another example. A fair reckoning for this aggression must be a part of any new diplomatic endeavor. For starters, a lasting peace must include all seized lands (including Crimea) returning to Ukraine. For that to be acceptable to Russia, the new security arrangement will need to address some of their underlying concerns. In short, there’s a real need for artful diplomacy to get us out of this present strategic dilemma.
Controversial as it may be, we should also put on the table some other obvious facts bearing on the strategic problem. Putin is a man, and as such, is mortal. He will die someday (or could be replaced by the Russian people) and Russia will eventually have another leader. Thus, our current diplomatic efforts regarding Russia should include approaches for dealing with both Putin and his eventual successor.
On Russia, here are some other salient facts. First, let’s recognize that this country has an economy the size of Illinois and an Army that could not defeat the Prairie State’s Army National Guard. It should be ever clearer now (although it was so even before this war), from a conventional forces’ standpoint, Russia is not a threat to NATO. However, Russia’s strategic arsenal (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons stockpiles and the hypersonic missile technology they likely possess) is a threat to Europe and the United States. For that reason, we must take Russia seriously, which means at a minimum, we must understand Russia’s security concerns and interests, even if we don’t like them or even agree with them.
Russia has long protested NATO expansion, claiming that this was a threat to its security. Given the series of invasions over the centuries Russia has endured, history should at least give us the strategic empathy to understand Russia’s position (again, even if one doesn’t agree with it). This should be the departure point for our diplomatic engagement with Russia. Ukraine has been the focal point for Russia’s actions over the past decade. Russia has consistently made it clear that a Ukraine in NATO would not be acceptable to them. If we are concerned about Russia’s strategic weapons, and if we believe Russia could help us and the West deter and shape a rising China, we should be interested in assuaging Russia’s concerns on that score.
All that stated, perhaps our problem has not been too much NATO expansion, but not enough.
We should immediately move to take off the table Russia’s concerns with NATO encroachment by informing Russia’s leader that Ukraine will not be offered entrance to NATO any sooner than Russia. This is an offer Russia (including Putin) will not be able to refuse, as much as they may want to do so. Their woeful performance in the war to date and the global isolation and economic wreckage it has endured as a consequence have Russia necessarily looking for a strategic game-changer. This is precisely why I believe the time is ripe for a bold move with creative ideas for re-imagining a new, sustainable security and economic arrangement for all of Europe.
I believe the nations of Europe, led by the United States, should move immediately to incorporate all the countries in Europe into both the European Union and NATO (including both Russia and Ukraine). Because this approach addresses Russia’s underlying concerns, the yielding back to Ukraine of all lands seized since 2014 would be a condition of this new security arrangement.
Next, the charter of these entities should be refocused on unifying Europe to check and shape a rising China, and in the process, to advance the economic interests of all parties. If there is a silver lining in this current crisis, it’s that for the first time since World War II, Europe (minus Russia) is truly united (indeed, even Germany is now finally putting in writing its pledge to fully meet its NATO obligations). We should build on that to achieve sustainable peace and prosperity.
Critics will say the West can’t trust nor work with Putin and Russia. Really? We worked with Stalin, one of the evilest tyrants in the history of the world. We’ve worked with other strong men who did terrible things many times over in our history when mutual interests were aligned and the circumstances required it, as it does now given the civilizational challenge from China. Critics will also say Russia is a corrupt nation. Yes, absolutely. And again, we’ve worked with other corrupt nations in our history when it’s been in our best interests, as it is now. Part of our new diplomatic endeavor should include clear and verifiable steps to clean up corruption, facilitate interoperability, and ensure compliance by all nations with these potentially new arrangements.
Finally on this score, as esteemed historian Ralph Peters has outlined, the U.S. and Russia have worked together effectively in the past when examining the six-decade period from 1860–1920. We can, and we must, find a way to do it again, as this current situation in Ukraine is not in anyone’s interests when considering the loss of life on both sides, the threat of escalation into a global war, the humanitarian crisis in Europe, and the hit to the global economy, including exacerbated inflation here at home. Short of an entirely new strategic direction, whatever battlefield outcome we see in the short-term in Ukraine, will not change any of that.
As I move to close this essay, I turn to potential critics who might question this entire diplomatic endeavor and want nothing to do with Russia, except wishing them a long, slow, especially painful military defeat in Ukraine. Let’s recognize that beyond the aforementioned consequences of a protracted struggle in Ukraine, an isolated and militarily struggling Russia may become desperate and could turn to unthinkable military actions. While in any potential nuclear exchange between Russia and the West, Russia is likely to end up the loser, the only potential winner in that scenario would be China. The unimaginable human toll (including potentially in the United States) and the ensuing global environmental wreckage, would surely usher in another dark age for all of humanity.
There is another course, but it won’t come about by chance––leadership must take us there. That will require us to break out of the Cold War mindset that stunts our national imagination still, all these decades later. As Americans, we have shown we are capable of thinking differently and changing the course of history, as we did with our bold exceptional Founding and when we changed directions in the 1980s and prevailed in the Cold War. Our strategic agility was informed by Realpolitik and a deep belief in ourselves as a nation, and our ability to overcome long odds to lead the world to a better place. We need to do it again.
