A lot has been said about the impending crisis in Ukraine. Putting aside the probability of a Russian invasion, the real question is whether we should respond with force. The answer to this question is complicated. While it is never easy to weigh the costs of American lives, it is also immoral to disregard the millions of innocent Eastern Europeans that will also be put at risk due to no fault of their own. I am a firm believer in global peace, and for that reason, I believe war is needed.
I can hear the audible shock from my fellow students. I know the word “war” has deep connotations. War is costly, in lives, money and spirit. There have been many wars that have become never-ending in recent years to preserve the United States’ order around the world. Keeping that in mind, it’s important to recognize that war, or even the threat of it, is often the best tool to preserve peace — when used correctly.
Ever since Ukraine broke off from the Soviet Union, the Russians have been eager to get them back into their orbit. The overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president in 2014 led to Russian instigation in Crimea. Undercover Russian troops dressed in green led to its successful annexation and have since contributed to conflict in the areas of Donetsk and Luhansk on the Russian border.
The central argument of “doves” is that war in Ukraine is frivolous — just another incident of a trigger-happy regime eager to play God. Let’s be clear. Ukraine is not Afghanistan, and the Russians are not the Taliban. While the merits of America’s prolonged involvement elsewhere are dubious, America’s involvement in Eastern Europe has a direct implication for our own national security. Ukraine is the borderland between Russia and our allies in the West. It is the crossroads of the free world. For centuries, Ukraine, along with much of its eastern neighbors, has been bounced between empires. Its people were denied the very fundamental rights we hold dear in the United States: the right to fairly contribute to one’s own government and to live in peace and prosperity.
Under the USSR, Ukraine was stripped of its identity. It was used solely as a pawn in the ambitions of a growing empire. It’s impossible not to draw parallels between this and our own experience. Under British rule, we, too, were a pawn for the follies of a distant power. Our economy, quality of life and freedoms were sacrificed to benefit the British empire. This experience is why we have fought around the world to preserve the freedom of others.
A second point to this is that Russia is not the Taliban. It’s an organized state whose military and economic resources rival that of the United States and Europe. Whereas the Taliban was able to take over Afghanistan with ease after the U.S. withdrawal of troops, Russia could easily take over Eastern Europe under the same conditions. For years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been salivating over the thought of doing just that. In 2008, Putin led a full-scale invasion of Georgia, turning that state to a Russian vassal seemingly overnight. Seeing the ambivalence of the West toward that move, Putin seized Crimea in 2014. Today, Russian puppet forces are still fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk under the guise of Russian nationalism. The reason for this use of force is NATO’s expansion into former Soviet territories — a move which Russia sees as a threat to its nation. Why would a few measly sanctions deter Putin’s advance?
Putin’s demands are absurd. He wants a promise from the Western alliance that Ukraine would never be able to join NATO. This would strip Ukrainians of their free will as well as the protection the organization has offered much of Eastern Europe for this reason. Moreover, this would open the door for similar demands in places throughout Europe. For years, the U.S. government has promised to never negotiate with extremists. Extremists like Putin will never play by the rules.
Following the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Adolf Hitler pledged to seize surrounding areas that were ethnically German under the guise of national security. Not wanting to start another global war, Western leaders did little to stop this expansion. While sanctions were ultimately placed and strong words issued, this did little to stop the ambitions of Hitler. Before the outbreak of World War II, he had already militarized the Rhineland and seized control of Austria and the Sudetenland. It was only when he put Lithuania and Poland at gunpoint that the Western allies responded.
After the Nazi regime had assumed control of nearly all of mainland Europe, the British government faced a similar predicament. The Nazis, using their position of power, offered to negotiate a favorable peace treaty with Britain — one that would assert German dominance over Europe in exchange for vague promises of goodwill. The deal was a very appealing offer. Britain could cut their losses before having to commit further costs defending itself. Winston Churchill, then the newly elected prime minister, rebuffed many of his advisers when he urged them to stay the course. It was this will — never to concede ground when dealing with rogue autocratic regimes — that led to the seven-decade-long democratic peace we’ve had since.
Few would argue that World War II was unjustified. No one would say that the thousands of lives shed to protect Western Europe from falling into oblivion were in vain. Putin, like his German autocratic counterpart, will stop at little to ensure he has the same protection the Nazis sought 70 years prior. The real question, then, is whether we follow the path of our forefathers and let him fulfill his wildest fantasies, or take a stand.
To be fair, this stand does not have to be an offensive campaign, but merely the refusal to give in to Russia’s demands without just compensation. Thankfully, this is precisely what is being done now. In recent statements, Western officials have condemned Russia’s military buildup as “unprovoked” and “unjustified,” reaffirming the “territorial … sovereignty of Ukraine, including Crimea,” according to The Daily Beast. Until Russian troops are removed, NATO has promised to only increase its defensive posture. For Ukraine’s sovereignty and that of Eastern Europe, that is the least we could do.
When our grandchildren ask us about Putin’s warmongering, what will we say? Will we say that we cowered in fear, or that we took a stand for liberty and justice around the world? Let’s tell them that when the chips were down, we acted decisively to preserve the democratic world order.
Peter Levy is an undeclared freshman.