Odesa Shines Amidst Challenges
Odesa, historically a jewel along the Black Sea, is bustling with around 1,000 participants at this year’s Black Sea Forum, showcasing a sense of revival.
Despite some windows boarded with plywood and a few burnt or damaged buildings, one could almost forget that this city is in a nation under siege. Its atmosphere is surprisingly normal under the circumstances.
In contrast to several American cities, Odesa’s streets remain largely intact. The architecture, influenced by Russian styles, hails from the 19th and early 20th centuries, adding to its charm.
But what stands out most is the resilience of the locals. Their determination to persevere in the face of war evokes comparisons to the British during the Blitz. This persistent optimism is evident among taxi drivers, restaurant staff, hotel employees, and everyday people I came across here.
The sentiment resonates strongly with many European representatives, including those from government, military, civil sectors, media, and academia. The consensus is clear: Russia poses a serious threat.
Should this aggression continue unchecked in Ukraine, it appears Vladimir Putin aims to dismantle NATO and recreate a vast empire reminiscent of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the U.S. seems largely oblivious to this pressing danger.
Interestingly, the ongoing war isn’t a top concern for most Americans. As an old saying goes, “It’s the economy, stupid.” The current president’s actions dominate media coverage, often overshadowing other issues.
Yes, there is a growing percentage of Americans, from both sides of the political spectrum, expressing support for Ukraine. This statistic gets cited often as justification for increased U.S. involvement. Yet, that support tends to fade when discussions shift to specifics—like providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry or even deploying U.S. troops.
As I write this, Senator Lindsey Graham and around 80 colleagues are advocating for stringent sanctions on Russia. Was there a sudden shift in resolve from Congress to confront Donald Trump, akin to what Lyndon Johnson faced?
That said, I acknowledge the need to counter Russia now, before it becomes an even larger threat. Many believe we may be overestimating Russia’s ability to conduct broader military campaigns. Certainly, for the time being, and in the foreseeable future, it continues to sustain substantial military casualties.
Most Ukrainians surely don’t believe that Putin’s ambitions will end with just this conflict. The troubling notion here is that being an enemy of the U.S. could actually be more beneficial than being a friend—just look at the experiences of millions from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Now, Ukraine faces a tragic dilemma.
Those of us who navigate the worlds of foreign and defense policy often argue that success in war can be lost if actions are delayed. Since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, many have criticized the U.S. for not providing sufficient military aid to change the course of the conflict.
But that’s history. What does the future hold?
Regardless of my differing perspective on Russia’s military strength, the actions taken must be countered. This seems increasingly unlikely. Now, it appears Trump will play a pivotal role in determining Ukraine’s fate.
Tragedy can be defined as the dissonance between expectations and reality. There were substantial reasons to support Ukraine, and several exit strategies could have been devised. Presently, however, Trump’s strategy seems to leave the resolution of this conflict solely to Russia and Ukraine.
If that’s the case, we shouldn’t be surprised by the outcome. Frankly, if that scenario unfolds, it’s something Americans should reflect upon with shame.
