Respecting the Red Line

For Ukraine, the U.S. and the world, we should respect the red line

“War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today. - John F. Kennedy”

Let me make this clear right off the bat. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is, was, and will always be a despicable act of aggression. Ukraine deserves to reclaim all of its land and receive compensation from Russia to rebuild the immense damage that has been inflicted upon it. Ukraine deserves to enjoy the full protection of NATO and join the European Union to build a better and brighter future for its people. The unfortunate reality is that these actions cannot happen in a Russia-less vacuum. We must, for the good of Ukraine and the world, respect the red lines of Russia before it’s too late.

Many have argued, with the recent invasion of Kursk by Ukrainian forces, that Russia has shown its red lines are meaningless. Russia promised severe consequences for any aid to Ukraine, in any capacity. As more Western aid poured in, Russia largely remained hesitant to pursue the nuclear threats it exercised with such fervent desire. This has led to consternation in Ukraine and among allied commentators who have pushed for the removal of all restrictions and more direct involvement in the conflict. This is an understandable ask, but we must remember to take the emotions out of military calculus. To think that Putin and Russia as a whole will allow themselves to be endlessly ignored and insulted when it comes to escalation is a foolish ideal. We are not only risking annihilation today but raising the chances for annihilation tomorrow.

Let us remember that throughout almost every war, hollow red lines are established and destroyed. It is the job of any competent military to at least try to get an enemy to back off or limit their involvement in a conflict. Russia has done this predictably throughout the war, though Putin himself has notably been more vague about what these red lines actually are. That is entirely because Russia figured that limited NATO involvement would always be better than complete NATO involvement. All in all, it was going to be impossible to immediately dissuade the Western world from detaching from Ukraine. Ammunition poured in, then M-1 Abrams, then F-16s, and even as Russia got increasingly flustered, they remained focused on keeping this a two-party conflict (one they could win).

The calculus is no different with the mistaken Ukrainian offensive in Kursk. Even though, on the surface, it may feel that this is the ultimate example of Russia’s red lines being entirely rhetorical, the reality is different. Russia knows that this offensive is doomed to fail and only serves to empower Russian gains throughout Ukraine. This is a temporary blip in what is becoming desperate times for the Ukrainian people. It is yet another decision by the Ukrainian military brass that is needlessly endangering its increasingly limited inventory of soldiers. If anything, the lack of escalatory rhetoric coming from Moscow underscores how confident they are in their current position. It gives Putin and his regime more firepower to point a finger at the Ukrainians and say, “Look, this is what we’re fighting against.”

Simultaneously, it increasingly looks as if our Ukrainian allies are behaving under a “do now, ask for forgiveness later” doctrine. They seem to believe that if worse comes to worst, the West will invariably back the Ukrainian military with even more direct support. This approach is not only incorrect, but it should also call into question whether the goals of Zelensky are the same as the goals of Ukraine at large. We have given the Ukrainians near everything they have asked for, all at the incursion of our security interests in Asia and the Middle East. While European leaders posture about a “mortal Europe,” we have been the ones who have kept a majority of Ukraine stable and secure. So why are our interests being ignored and insulted time and time again by a country that claims to share our security interests? Why should the American people be willing to trade Boston for Kharkiv? We shouldn’t, we aren’t, and we never will be. Reminding the Ukrainians, and in particular Zelensky, of this fact would do all of us well.

The more we push and goad Russia regarding escalatory rhetoric, the more we risk it literally blowing up in our faces. Is sending Ukraine the arms they need to fight not enough? At what point will we realize that this world we inhabit is inherently an unfair and cruel place and that not every geopolitical outcome will end unequivocally in our favor? If Ukraine cannot win with the generous arms offer we have sent them, then they will not win at all. Controlling a fraction of a fraction of Russia is not changing that.

As Ukraine continues to suffer losses on the battlefield, the calls for the removal of restrictions on long-range missiles have increased. This removal of restrictions, proponents argue, will finally be the action that turns the tide of this war. This line of thinking requires you to forget that before long-range missiles, it was F-16s that promised to give Ukraine the upper hand. Before F-16s, it was Abrams tanks, and before that, it was intermediate missiles. Do you see a trend? Time after time, we give the Ukrainians technology that we are promised will result in their eventual victory, and time after time, it fails. This has to end somewhere. Already, Russia has moved much of its aircraft farther into Russian territory to preempt a potential approval of these long-range missiles. Just like every other previous request from Ukraine and its allies, this too will fail to materially change the battlefield conditions.

Despite the Biden administration's well-founded hesitation on accepting this request, much of Europe has already allowed free-range of any arms or ammunition sent to Ukraine. The response from Russia will no doubt result in more hybrid attacks against EU infrastructure, both civilian and military. These attacks will fall short of direct declarations of war but will no doubt accelerate the push for a ceasefire in Ukraine, particularly in Western European countries that are many miles from any potential conflict. Still, this escalation is incredibly dangerous for both sides. Any miscalculation or civilian casualty could drive both sides to the brink of war, and while I hope diplomacy would prevail, there is no guarantee. Russia’s potential escalatory responses lean more diplomatic than militant, but deriding any potential action short of nuclear deployment as inconsequential is a tragic mistake.

Not only is ignoring this escalation dangerous in the current moment, but it also sets a terribly dangerous standard for future U.S. military action. We must realize that our actions in Ukraine are going to affect any future conflict the U.S. is involved in with a non-nuclear state. We have now established that it need not matter if a country has a nuclear bomb; as long as troops are not on the ground, it isn’t an act of war. Say we get into another conflict in the Middle East—what would stop Russia from allowing Iran to use Russian weapons on U.S. military targets across the world? Russia would be within its rights, apparently, to allow an Iranian incursion on U.S. soil directly. The sedimentation of history is constantly in motion, and the actions we are taking now are erasing the norms and practices of the last century of great power conflict. The fight for Ukraine is not a Hollywood blockbuster where our good guy eventually comes out on top against all odds. This is real life, and real life is often plagued with unfairness and cruelty that we have no power to change.

It is never easy to accept a deal not in your favor, but it is sometimes the only option you have. Ukrainian sons, fathers, and husbands have all fought and died to protect their homeland. We must push for a ceasefire in Ukraine and then uphold our responsibility for having prolonged this damnable war that the west holds hold at least some responsibility for it. The West should rebuild Ukraine into an economic and industrial powerhouse and arm it to the teeth with advanced weaponry that would deter any Russian aggression in the future. We should forego the ceremonious entrance into NATO and instead give Ukraine something substantive to build and protect its homeland so future generations will not have to live under the constant threat of invasion. It is a policy that is based in reality but built off a dream for a fairer and freer Ukraine.

Many will disagree, and some strongly, that this vision for Ukraine ignores the big-bad-Russia hanging over any peace deal. To this, I raise the question: how else does this end? If you believe that Russia is 1939 Germany, and Putin is Hitler, then this world is going to end imminently. We are talking about nuclear-armed powers. If Russia is hell-bent on trampling through Europe, then we are powerless to stop what will be the true war to end all wars. There is nothing productive, nor realistic, about this line of thinking. It ignores the rationale of Russia and Putin himself, both of whom saw the West essentially give them a tacit yellow light on military actions in Ukraine in previous operations. The idea that every ceasefire in any conflict has been mediated by two parties who trusted each other is preposterous. What makes these settlements and ceasefires secure and long-lasting is the understanding that another war would be no more beneficial for either side than the first.

This line of thinking about Russian military actions is completely antithetical to much of what has actually happened on the ground. We, the Western public, do not hear about the Ukrainian men who cower in their apartments, terrified that if they step outside, they will be rounded up and deployed without proper training or arms. We do not hear about the verifiable claims of corruption surrounding some parts of the Ukrainian government, nor do we hear about how exactly Ukraine plans to end this war. Instead, we are expected to endlessly support a country that cannot win, led by a man who cannot secure the peace. We are expected to endlessly support escalation and naively view Ukraine as the bulwark for a safe, secure, and peaceful Europe. We must all understand that the importance of facts in any domain, but especially war, is absolutely crucial. We are talking about human lives, both Russian and Ukrainian, many of whom want no part of this war.

There is a certain type of analyst who will attempt to discredit any U.S. foreign policy action, or any action in which the West is aligned. I am, and I say this honestly, not one of those people. I believe defending Ukraine was the right thing to do for our own security and for the Ukrainians themselves. If Putin had truly swept through Ukraine, then I would agree that the odds of a future conflict between NATO and Russia would be dramatically higher. Times have changed, though, and Russia has shown that it will never be capable of taking on NATO in conventional warfare. I have so much sympathy for the innocent Ukrainians who have died because of this tragic conflict, and I am heartbroken at the constant violence that these innocent souls have been damned to. But let us not aid in the slaughter of more human lives just because of those that are already dead. It doesn’t help Ukraine, the U.S., or anyone else.

"Wars can be prevented just as surely as they can be provoked, and we who fail to prevent them must share the guilt for the dead.” - Omar Bradley