`No' to war with Russia over Ukraine
When it's not involved in a full-scale war or some longrunning occupation, the United States government often is involved in some tense international situation. In recent years, the conflicts have mostly involved small, underdeveloped countries that pose little threat to our democracy, whether it's a war of words with Iran over its missile strikes in Iraq or a clunky effort to extricate our troops from Afghanistan.
The latest flashpoint is Ukraine, the eastern European nation on Russia's western border. Although Russia is a pale imitation of its Soviet former self, the latest conflict with its increasingly despotic leader, Vladimir Putin, should be of greater concern than usual. Russia has nearly 4,500 nuclear warheads and war with that nation therefore remains a frightening prospect.
“The situation we are facing in Europe is urgent and dangerous,” United States Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said on Monday at the United Nations Security Council. By contrast, Russia's ambassador accused the United States of “whipping up tensions and provoking escalation.” Fortunately, both countries have thus far vowed to avoid war.
Russia's conflict with Ukraine dates to 2013 when Ukraine's Russian-allied President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country after massive protests against his rejection of a deal that would have brought Ukraine further into the European Union's orbit. After residents of Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, Russian troops annexed the peninsula. Violent conflicts have simmered along Ukraine's eastern border.
The Trump administration provided weaponry to Ukraine and imposed sanctions on Russian officials, but the latest fracas started in October when Russia began amassing 100,000 troops and military hardware along the Ukrainian border. U.S. intelligence officials are fearful of a Russian invasion, while the Russians believe that Western support for Ukraine threatens its security by bringing the NATO alliance right to Russia's doorstep.
Like most such international conflicts, there are no simple answers. Non-interventionists are concerned the Biden administration is making overly bold promises about the United States' willingness to take action on behalf of Ukraine, whereas interventionists believe that our nation is on the verge of abandoning its international leadership role by not acting forcefully enough.
“If Russia is permitted to build an undisguised sphere of influence, Putin's despotism will invariably be bolstered at home and emboldened in its quest to wreck the Western alliance,” The Bulwark's Brian Stewart wrote. We're not convinced, however, that this dispute is a seminal battle about Europe's future — or that the matter can't be solved with give and take.
The political winds have shifted in the United States over the last few years, as conservatives — and even many liberals — have grown weary of America's endless conflicts. Although we strongly condemn any Russian effort to attack an independent nation, we find these new non-interventionist sensibilities to be an encouraging development.
We agree with the sentiments expressed by the Libertarian Party's Veterans Caucus: “Libertarians can empathize with the Ukrainian people. They're in a tough spot with a nasty adversary. Unfortunately for them, this isn't America's fight.”
The United States should, of course, engage diplomatically and even sanction foreign officials who behave atrociously. It's time, however, for our country to stop viewing itself as the first line of defense in every international conflict and refocus its military priorities on defending our nation.