There is something profoundly peculiar, almost shameful, about the posture adopted by the United States and NATO regarding the Ukrainian war effort. I have written before on the imperative of conservatives — and indeed all those who cherish Western civilization and the benefits it bestows — to support Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. It is not, as some detractors would simplistically allege, a matter of placing Ukraine’s interests above our own. Rather, it is that Ukraine’s survival, the integrity of its borders, and Russia’s defeat, are matters wholly aligned with America’s interests and the maintenance of a world order in which our prosperity is not merely a fleeting aberration, but a dependable condition.
To state it plainly: the emergent axis of Russia and China poses a threat not only to regional peace, but to the very architecture that has secured our place in the world, and our place in the world is largely responsible for our unmatched prosperity. One need not advocate for “endless wars” and “American imperialism” to concede that American prosperity is a product — at least in large part — of our ability to project power. It is this projection, this capacity to bend events to our will, to shape them for good, that has maximized peace and freedom and the dividends they pay, and that has enabled a global environment in which markets function, trade flows freely, and other ambitious powers are kept in check. Should we abandon this posture, should we allow regional tyrants and their allies to destabilize the system with impunity, the repercussions for our prosperity and security would be vast and irreversible.
So far, so uncontroversial, I hope. But here is where the matter grows not just curious, but grotesque: at the same time that we support Ukraine, we handicap them. We bankroll their efforts to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, but we place constraints on our aid so stringent that Ukraine is forced to fight with one arm tied behind its back. The Ukrainians are forbidden to strike Russia’s critical infrastructure or military positions in Russia itself. We refuse to establish a no-fly zone to protect Ukrainian troops. And we pay only lip service to Ukraine joining NATO, while making no real effort to further this. In other words, the very things that might lead Ukraine to victory are the things that we prohibit. It is as though the Western powers wish for Ukraine to survive, but not to prevail.
One must ask: what is the point of supporting Ukraine if we refuse to allow them to win the war? And are we then making matters worse?
Consider the absurdity of the situation. Ukraine’s battlefield capabilities are restricted by Western policy ostensibly to avoid “escalation.” This polite euphemism is NATO-speak for the fear that any real threat to Putin’s regime will provoke him to use more desperate, violent measures, as though he requires any provocation. Are we to believe that a man who ordered tanks into Kyiv — and whose forces have committed atrocities on a horrifying scale — is restrained by some higher morality that will be breached only if Ukraine dares fight back effectively?
Let us not forget the sheer incompetence of those advancing this idiotic, self-defeating policy. These are the very same strategists, policymakers, and think-tank oracles who once warned us that Ukraine and other buffer states must not join NATO for fear of provoking Putin. And yet what happened? Ukraine’s absence from NATO protection did not forestall Russian aggression; it invited it. It was weakness, not strength, that emboldened the Kremlin. It is an error of such staggering magnitude that one would think NATO planners might hesitate before committing a similar mistake.
But here we are again. The same policymakers that left Ukraine vulnerable have decided that Ukraine must not play offense, but only defense. It is no longer a war of maneuver; it is a war of attrition, and such wars do not favor the country with a smaller population, fewer resources, and less time to spare. How does this advantage Ukraine? Why is prolonging the war less dangerous than ending it? How is it less provocative? If anything is provoking violence, it’s Ukraine’s inability to hit back! Is it not obvious that the longer this war drags on, the greater the damage to the side we are ostensibly trying to help?
Already, we see the seeds of a broader conflict being sown. Russia is now reinforcing its forces with troops and materiel from North Korea. How long before China, emboldened by Western hesitancy, decides to follow suit? And if that moment arrives, are we prepared to match such commitments? If the answer is no — and I suspect it is, as it should be — then the question becomes: why are we waiting for the situation to become desperate? Why do we refuse to empower the Ukrainians to win now, rather than prolonging their agony and raising the stakes for all involved?
At some point, we must acknowledge the obvious. This war will not end because a clock runs out. It will end when one side prevails, and every day that the West refuses to give Ukraine the tools to achieve victory is another day that risks escalating the conflict further. It is a farce, and a dangerous one, to pretend otherwise.
The cause of Ukraine is, at its core, the cause of the civilized world against barbarism. To deny Ukraine the tools to win is not some high-minded act of prudence; it is cowardice masquerading as caution. Let us give the Ukrainians what they need to strike at the heart of their oppressor. Let us abandon this absurd posture of limiting their fight. And let us remember that the enemies of Ukraine — Russia, China, and their ilk — are, in the final analysis, the enemies of our own prosperity and way of life.
To prolong the war is to tempt disaster. To end it decisively, with Ukrainian victory, with American victory, is not merely the right choice; it is the only choice.
