By Daniel L. Davis for RealClearDefense
It is time to accede to political and strategic reality and move from dangling the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine – which would neither deter Russia nor improve America’s security – to one in which we focus on outcomes that have a chance of reducing the possibility of war in Europe: encourage Ukraine to adopt a position of neutrality and engage diplomatically with Russia to implement the Minsk Protocols.
Refusing to do so increases the chance for a war that would serve neither the interests of Ukraine, NATO, nor the United States. The fears of renewed war between Russia and Ukraine are not far-fetched.
Last August, Russia began again building up forces near the Ukraine border. By mid-November, the number had risen to a reported 100,000. Last week, Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, Chief of Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence agency, warned that Russia is preparing for an attack into Ukraine by the end of January or the beginning of February.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he is concerned that the buildup of Russian troops indicates they are “trying to rehash” their 2014 invasion.
This troop surge is particularly concerning for two reasons. First, there are no obvious additional tensions between Moscow and Kyiv that would provide typical explanations for the move. Second, some of the troops in this buildup just participated in a major exercise that simulated an attack conducted under circumstances eerily similar to those that exist near Ukraine today.
According to a post-exercise assessment conducted by the Center for European Policy Analysis, Zapad-21 practiced concepts “aimed at achieving operational surprise at the onset of a conflict” and included “a renewed emphasis on peacetime pre-positioning of force and equipment… to increase combat readiness and general preparedness.”
Support Conservative Voices!
Sign up to receive the latest political news, insight, and commentary delivered directly to your inbox.
One of the key participants in the Zapad-21 exercise was the headquarters of Russia’s 41st Combined Arms Army (CAA), ordinarily stationed in Novosibirsk, about 2,000 miles from Ukraine. However after the exercise concluded in mid-September, the Washington Post reported that the unit did not return to its home base but “instead linked up with other Russian forces near the Ukrainian border.”
A CSIS analysis of available satellite imagery confirms that the 41st CAA is still positioned opposite Ukraine.
If that weren’t enough cause for alarm, comments Putin made last summer and again recently added to the concerns. In a speech at the Russian foreign ministry in July, Putin said Russians and Ukrainians are actually “one people” and that “the idea of Ukrainian people as being separate from the Russians” is simply wrong.
More ominously, Putin added that he was “becoming more and more convinced of this: Kyiv simply does not need Donbas,” and “the (Russian) inhabitants of these regions will never accept” Ukrainian control.
In November, Putin stated that Ukraine represented “the most pressing and sensitive issue” for Russia and that he was concerned his “red lines” were not being taken seriously by the West, notably citing NATo’s eastward expansion. Russia’s current troop buildup opposite Ukraine implies his warnings may not be empty rhetoric, as Putin may well be seriously considering seizing the Donbas and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.
The United States and all of Western Europe are right to oppose any resort to the use of force to change borders. Doing so would greatly increase the fears of the European states near Russia and could lead to a new arms race and military buildup in the region.
Whether we like it or not, however, we have to recognize that Putin – who in the past resorted to force against parts of Georgia and Ukraine when he felt his interests were at risk – may act to move on portions of eastern Ukraine again if he perceives Russia’s vital interests are threatened.
There is almost no chance the United States or NATO will go to war with Moscow over the non-treaty partner of Ukraine, as doing so would be a strategic blunder of the first order. Given that reality, then, it is in Washington’s and Ukraine’s interests to pursue other policies that have a realistic chance of preserving the peace in Europe.
Rather than joining the NATO military alliance – a red line for Moscow – Kyiv should opt for a position of neutrality. Adopting such a policy, as my colleague from Defense Priorities Mike Sweeny pointed out last year, “could not only serve Ukraine vis-à-vis assuaging Russian security concerns but also by giving the still relatively young nation time to consolidate itself internally.”
Moscow’s red lines relate to its physical security, not Kyiv’s economic policies. Both Russia and Ukraine have previously agreed in principle to negotiate their differences through the Minsk Protocols. Encouraging Ukrainian negotiators to continue talks with Russia would be in its long-term interests.
Many will suggest that encouraging Kyiv to declare neutrality instead of seeking NATO membership is a sell-out to Moscow’s threats. Instead, it is a recognition of stark reality: Ukraine sits astride a 1,200 mile border with Russia and does not have Article 5 security guarantees – if NATO were to extend such guarantees, it would very possibly spark a major war that could devastate much of Central and Eastern Europe, and in a worst case, result in a nuclear exchange.
Bluntly put, nothing at stake in Ukraine is worth risking plunging NATO into a war with nuclear-armed Russia. It’s time to accede to that reality and give Ukraine its best chance of a free and prosperous future.
Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis1
Read this Next on ThePoliticalInsider.comTrial Lawyers Cash In On Biden’s Build Back Better Plan
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Political Insider.