In Ukraine, there’s a renewed reminder of the importance of caution. It’s crucial to be mindful of what you wish for.
One of the initial significant missteps was President Biden’s apparent approval for a “minor incursion” into Ukraine back in February 2022, which, perhaps unintentionally, contributed to Russia’s larger invasion.
I’m not alone in thinking that there was a broad consensus, including among Biden’s team, that Ukraine would quickly crumble under Russia’s attacks. This perception mirrored past events, like in 2008, when the invasion and occupation of parts of Georgia were, if not accepted, at least somewhat overlooked. President Bush, seeking NATO’s support for both Georgia and Ukraine, seemed influenced by his meeting with Putin, saying he saw “his soul.” But ultimately, he didn’t take decisive actions to counter the Russian aggression.
This pattern of yielding to authoritarian ambitions has echoes of historical misjudgments before World War II. In 2014, Russia took over parts of Ukraine, which aligned with earlier expectations established under President Obama regarding flexibility with Putin after his reelection. Many believed this was a cycle repeating itself, with vital sections of Ukraine ever more vulnerable as leaders chose appeasement in the face of aggression.
However, President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people recognized that the invasion was a fight for their very existence. They opted to defy the odds, rallying for diplomatic support, intelligence, and weaponry, while notably lacking direct combat assistance. Fast-forward three and a half years, and Russia has faced staggering losses—millions of casualties and tremendous financial costs, with no tangible territorial gains since the early days of the conflict. What’s particularly striking, in Putin’s perspective, is that NATO has only grown stronger with new members like Sweden and Finland at Russia’s doorstep.
In light of these developments, and possibly feeling a sense of emboldened defiance, Putin has engaged with Donald Trump, who seemingly offers a more sympathetic platform. There’s a strange admiration evident, and yet it might just provide Trump with a sense of empowerment that could backfire, leading him to misjudge the situation again.
After a notable slip-up in Alaska, Trump’s follow-ups have led to what could be seen as an unceremonious rebuff of Zelensky in a previous meeting. The former Russian president Medvedev even gloated about Trump giving Zelensky what he called a deserved reprimand. This kind of rhetoric seems to bolster Putin’s stance, allowing him to disregard any concessions seemingly handed to him.
The much-discussed summits have sometimes played out as mere PR moves, with Trump appearing sidelined, opting for a more diplomatic tone instead of outright rebuke, perhaps misreading the dynamics at play.
Trump’s aspirations for a peace prize loom large, yet his invitations for Zelensky to re-engage with the White House present complexities, particularly regarding security guarantees that Ukraine desperately needs. Following past experiences—certain agreements like the Budapest Memorandum are viewed skeptically—Ukraine wants something more concrete, akin to NATO article guarantees. Trump’s advisors suggest that Putin may have agreed to some form of security similar to NATO’s Article 5.
In the face of continued threats, NATO allies are taking more assertive steps to ensure both individual and collective security in response to Putin’s actions. To this end, Zelensky recently garnered support from leaders across Europe, intensifying the Western coalition’s response to unprecedented threats since the last major global conflict.
The US and its European counterparts must devise a cohesive strategy for Ukraine’s success, which includes:
- Vital security assurances that both Zelensky and European partners require for peace.
- An increase in arms supplied to Ukraine, maximizing their range and effectiveness.
- A diplomatic commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and political independence.
- Stricter economic sanctions against Russia, and secondary sanctions on nations supporting Putin.
- Seizing Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction and compensating families affected by war crimes.
Reflecting on the failed Alaska Summit, General Philip Breedlove remarked that “Russia has never been interested in peace with Ukraine, nor does it seem inclined to change.” If there’s no shift in Putin’s aggressive approach, the US and Europe might need to contemplate a more fundamental shift in Russia’s leadership.
Joseph Bosco served as an advisor in the Secretary of Defense’s office from 2005 to 2006 and led the Asia-Pacific region of humanitarian aid and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010.
