Skip to main content
opinion

As the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine approaches, resignation has taken hold in the West about the dim prospects for peace. The urgency with which NATO countries mobilized nearly a year ago has dissipated.

The initial horror at Russia’s violation of international law and perpetration of atrocities in a democratic European neighbour has morphed into a grudging and depressing acceptance that this conflict could drag on for a very long time.

There are no signs that Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite his spectacular failure to realize any of his military objectives, has grown tired of losing. Mr. Putin is playing a long game, figuring he can wait it out until Western leaders lose their nerve in the face of Ukraine’s endless demands for more military and economic aid.

Western countries hemmed and hawed for months before finally agreeing to send main battle tanks (MBTs) to Ukraine, and it will take months before those German Leopard 2 and U.S. M1 Abrams tanks reach the battlefield. Canada waited until more than a dozen other NATO members had announced the delivery of MBTs to Ukraine before authorizing a contribution of a paltry four Leopard 2s to the war effort, a sad reflection of the dithering that goes on in Ottawa whenever our military allies ask us to step up. We never cease to underwhelm.

Amid reports that Russia is preparing a major offensive to coincide with the first anniversary of the war, Washington and its allies are now stewing over whether to agree to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s request for F-16 fighter jets. U.S. President Joe Biden this week offered a stark “no” when asked whether he would send any F-16s to Ukraine. His “no” also prevents other countries with large fleets of American-built F-16s from offering their planes to Ukraine. Washington’s approval is required to transfer any F-16s to third-party countries.

The reluctance to provide Ukraine with more sophisticated equipment and weapons, such as fighter jets or long-range missile systems, stems from a fear that such actions could lead to an escalation in the war. That Mr. Putin would respond by unleashing even more brutal and indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian civilians. Or that he might even make good on his threat to use nuclear weapons, despite all indications up until now that he has been bluffing about that.

Yet, there may be a much greater risk for the West in not moving swiftly to meet Ukrainian requests for F-16s and long-range missiles. While Western countries have provided unprecedented amounts of military aid to Ukraine in the past 11 months, it has not been enough to turn the tide of the war in Ukraine’s favour. And the longer the war goes on, it will only get harder for Western leaders to justify additional incremental aid to their voters.

Next year is a presidential election year in the United States. While Donald Trump-aligned Republicans have already expressed increasing reservations about continuing to backstop Mr. Zelensky’s war efforts, progressive Democrats opposed to military spending could join them.

In October, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote to Mr. Biden calling for diplomatic talks aimed at reaching a cease fire in Ukraine. They quickly retracted their letter after pushback from influential Democrats. But the incident served as a warning for the White House that it cannot take continued congressional support for the war effort for granted.

Mr. Biden is facing increasing calls to take decisive action to change the course of the war in Ukraine while he still can. Whether or not he runs again in 2024, the window of opportunity for stepping up military aid may close rapidly as more Republicans declare their candidacies for their party’s presidential nomination and potential Democratic rivals to Mr. Biden emerge.

In an article published this week in Foreign Affairs magazine, Stanford University political science professor Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia under president Barack Obama, urged the United States and NATO allies to embrace a “Big Bang” approach to the war effort by announcing a massive increase in military aid to Ukraine on the first anniversary of the conflict. This would include delivering F-16s, long-range missile systems, and more of everything else that the West has provided or agreed to provide up until now.

“An announcement of this size will produce an important psychological effect inside the Kremlin and Russian society, signalling the West is committed to Ukraine’s ambition to liberate all occupied territories,” Mr. McFaul wrote. “On Feb. 24, Biden and NATO allies could fuel this perception that it would be futile for Russia to continue its fight.”

Without such bold action, he added, “the war will settle into a stalemate, which is only to Putin’s advantage.”

If that happens, history may not judge Mr. Biden very kindly at all.

Follow related authors and topics

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Interact with The Globe