OPINION:
When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the situation was very different from what Russian President Vladimir Putin faces today in Ukraine.
In February 1989, the USSR was on the ropes at home and abroad. The Soviets had lost about 15,000 troops and billions of dollars in equipment in the 10 years it had tried unsuccessfully to conquer Afghanistan. American aid helped “mujahedeen” fighters kill Russians and shoot down their aircraft.
Moreover, the Soviet economy was failing, and its government was on the verge of losing control. The Berlin Wall was to fall that November, and all pretense that the U.S. had not won the Cold War evaporated.
Mr. Putin’s situation in Ukraine has worsened this year. His economy is shaky, sustained by only oil and gas exports.
Mr. Putin had bet that his “special military operation” in Ukraine would succeed in a matter of days and that no aid would reach the Ukrainians until too late. But Russia’s air forces couldn’t establish air supremacy, and its ground forces didn’t take Kyiv. Massive aid in funding and military equipment flowed into Ukraine but not enough to ensure Ukrainian victory. On Monday, the war will enter its fourth year.
Russian casualties and other losses vastly exceed those sustained in Afghanistan, but they are hard to measure because they are disputed. Russia hasn’t updated its count of those killed in battle since September 2022, when it said it had sustained 6,000 dead. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed that 350,000 Russians were killed and over 600,000 were wounded.
North Korea’s 10,000 troops sent to Ukraine have apparently been used as cannon fodder without making any significant battlefield gains.
The losses of Russian equipment are also disputed. In what may be the most accurate assessment, the British Defense Ministry said in December that Russia had lost over 3,700 main battle tanks and more than 8,000 armored vehicles.
Ukraine’s losses have also been severe. Mr. Zelenskyy has said Ukraine has sustained over 45,000 troops killed and about 390,000 wounded. That number doesn’t include the civilians intentionally killed by the Russians. Mr. Zelenskyy has said that more than half the wounded troops have been able to rejoin the fight, which may also be true of the Russians.
Ukraine has trouble replacing its troops, given its vastly smaller population than Russia. It apparently needs 50,000 to 100,000 more soldiers. The problems are exacerbated by Ukrainian brigades comprising new troops. History shows that blending new troops with veterans produces far better results.
While fighting continues, an attempt at diplomacy seeks to end the war. The U.S. and Russia have begun negotiations without the participation of Ukraine and Europe.
The usually steady Trump team seems confused, and Ukraine’s and NATO’s leaders fear being left out. Mr. Trump’s Feb. 12 conversation with Mr. Putin and subsequent remarks by his Cabinet members seem to have conceded several points to Mr. Putin that should have been left to negotiations.
It’s worrying that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has stated that Ukraine should not join NATO and that it shouldn’t expect to regain all the territory Russia has seized since 2022. Those points, while valid, should never have been conceded before the last stages of negotiations. Worse still, a few days before his Munich speech, Vice President J.D. Vance said that sending U.S. troops to Ukraine remained “on the table” if Mr. Putin didn’t negotiate in good faith.
Seriously? For Mr. Putin to negotiate in good faith would defy his genetic makeup and personal history.
The question of when we should spend U.S. lives defending other nations or our security is always at issue. It boils down to whether our national security interest in the issue is vital.
Our vital national security interests include the rights we enjoy under the Constitution and the freedoms of the skies, seas, space and cyberspace. Treaty obligations such as NATO require us to fight when other nations are attacked, whether we like it or not.
Other national security interests, such as our interest in Ukraine, are not vital. That interest results only from our desire to thwart Mr. Putin’s plans. We won’t lose any of our freedoms if Russia conquers Ukraine. We have no mutual defense treaty with Ukraine. It would be entirely wrong for our president to shed the blood of American troops in Ukraine’s defense.
European leaders have been disinvited from the Ukraine negotiations, which offends them greatly but reflects their weakness. Ukraine has not been included in the negotiations as of this writing but will soon be.
Aside from his reputation as the “Great Disrupter,” President Trump has the opportunity to make a deal that will, at least temporarily, protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. It remains to be seen whether he can.
• Jed Babbin is a national security and foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Times and contributing editor for The American Spectator.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.