A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
OPINION:
The recent flurry of diplomacy surrounding the 28-point peace plan seems to continue the U.S. misunderstanding of what the Russia-Ukraine war is about, as well as the consequences of a peace based on many of the measures in the plan.
The war is a tragedy for both sides in terms of human lives and potential lost. In this morass, however, is a deeply ingrained history that makes it difficult to reach a settlement that can be fully acceptable to both sides. For Ukraine and Russia, the war is a struggle over two intertwined issues, namely identity and territory.
For centuries, Ukraine has struggled to maintain its national identity and language under the subjugation of various empires, most notably under the czars and Soviets. Territory is a key element of maintaining this identity, and Ukrainians won’t be easily persuaded to yield on this point.
That Ukraine has been able to withstand the brutal onslaught by a Russia with far more manpower and equipment should make the Trump administration realize the resolve and resilience of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine has been able to destroy about 35% of Russia’s Black Sea navy and close to a third of its oil refining capability.
The administration should work with this tenacity and success rather than take steps that undermine it. For Russia, Ukraine has always been seen as a province without its own identity. Various attempts to subjugate Ukraine’s identity — including periods of outlawing the Ukrainian language and the starvation deaths of millions of Ukrainians because of the artificially imposed famine of the 1930s — have failed.
It will take time for this attitude toward Ukraine to dissipate, but the current peace plan does nothing to help Russia overcome history. Rather, it sets the stage for continued aggression. Forcing Ukraine to cede territory opens a potential rift in the social fabric. After years of defending their territory, the populace and the military will view such a step as a betrayal. This combination could create internal political turmoil that Russia will certainly seek to exploit.
Furthermore, Ukraine’s democracy makes allowances for diversity, but overly catering to Russia’s demands regarding the operation of the Russian language and media in Ukraine sets a bad precedent. It creates pretexts for Russian aggression in the future under the guise of protecting Russian speakers. This was part of the Russian playbook in 2014.
Although the U.S. can be commended for wanting to stop the bloodshed, Washington’s policy has unfortunately exacerbated the conflict and advanced Russia’s military position. By accepting Russia’s positions first (and dropping the focus on a ceasefire), the administration has emboldened Russia to escalate the conflict. The stated position of denying Ukraine NATO membership, discussing limiting Kyiv’s military force and defense capabilities, and the lack of clear security guarantees encourages Moscow to believe that the U.S. position tilts in Russia’s favor.
Russia has taken advantage of the situation. Its drone and missile attacks have significantly increased since the start of this administration.
We should work with the Ukrainians rather than continue to browbeat them into submission. By providing Ukraine with all the necessary military support, Kyiv may not win — but it will be able to put Russia in a position where the onerous points of the peace plan can be omitted and Moscow can be forced into a negotiated settlement.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin is on a weak footing. He is waging a war from which he has no exit. He will have to compromise, and we should not help him by undermining Ukraine. The Russian economy is in a shambles and getting worse. The Russian military is not as successful as our policymakers believe and is becoming more discouraged to the point that it may soon not be a viable force.
The U.S. needs to be cautious on another front. There’s an expectation of a great economic windfall through increased trade and potential U.S. investment opportunities in Russia and a belief that economic ties with Russia and the growth of the Russian economy will prevent future aggression by Moscow. The administration should keep in mind that Russia is an autocratic state and that any trade or investments would be subject to the government’s whims. Many of the investment opportunities will be in the development of natural resources, a process that will take years, subjecting them to the political vagaries between the two states.
Current discussions regarding vast investment opportunities are just another lure being used by Russia to undermine U.S. support of Ukraine, relying on the transactional tendency of the administration, and do nothing to change Moscow’s stance toward Ukraine. In this case, the administration is looking in the wrong place.
A better economic partner is a free and democratic Ukraine. The country offers an abundance of economic opportunities, as seen in the minerals deal. Beyond that, Ukraine is a major agricultural producer, has a solid workforce, and, despite corruption issues, operates more on the scale of Western economies, thereby helping facilitate long-term prospects for U.S. investors.
Ukraine’s cutting-edge development of various drone technologies attests to its ability to innovate. Also, its size, potential economy and geographic location position it as an ideal security partner for the U.S.
There is a mistaken belief that peace will help bring Russia back onto the world stage as a more positive actor and undermine the Russia-China relationship, enhancing U.S. security interests. Russia and China, however, have a common aim: to restructure the international order and make it more suitable to their own interests. Their vision endorses autocratic governments in which the state is supreme, individual rights are disregarded, and the state dominates the economy. All this runs counter to U.S. and overall international interests.
The U.S. must realize that the war in Ukraine is part of a greater conflict pitting the rule of law, democracy, individual rights and free markets against the authoritarian goals of Moscow and Beijing.
It’s not too late for the U.S. to reposition its approach and provide the necessary support for Ukraine, eliminate features of any plan that undermine Ukraine’s identity and security and to embrace Ukraine as an economic and strategic partner. The current strategy is putting the U.S. on the road to losing the peace.
• Roman Popadiuk served as the first U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. He is chairman of Elevate Ukraine, a Texas-based nonprofit providing humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, and serves as president of the Unity Club, an international grouping dedicated to assisting Ukraine’s rebuilding in the postwar environment.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.