After a year of violence, horror and agony for the Ukrainian people, their conflict with Russia is far from over. Fighting off the rapid Russian takeover, the Ukrainians entered a phase of military and diplomatic stagnation, with neither country making significant progress towards winning the war. All this time, the United States stood on the side of freedom, accepting the request of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide the weapons and ammunition necessary to repel the Russian forces. America paid dearly for this.
After imposing economic sanctions on the Russians and choking off the world’s main oil supplier, prices at gas stations rose dramatically. Worsening the already weakened economy, inflation also soared, and the Federal Reserve’s fight to offset Russian sanctions and achieve price stability ended in failure. Internationally, the war has plunged the North Atlantic Alliance into chaos and sparked debates about the group’s role in helping non-treaty allies. Moreover, after years of withdrawing from our relations with Saudi Arabia and other dangerous oil states, the Biden administration was forced to plead with OPEC leaders to stop cutting oil production. While the American people support Ukrainians in their heroic struggle for independence, the turmoil the war has caused at home and abroad finally makes us ask the uncomfortable question: is America still worth intervening in Ukraine?
Early in the war, many lawmakers called on President Joe Biden to take drastic steps to support Ukraine, including allowing it to join NATO and direct military intervention in the country. Admittedly, Biden made the wise decision to avoid extreme escalation and instead focus on measures that would punish but not provoke the Russian people. This initially took the form of removing Russia from the SWIFT banking system, which caused significant economic damage, in addition to many economic sanctions on Russian goods being a strong statement.
Unfortunately, while Biden’s original goal was to get the Russians to make peace, this strategy failed. Over the past year, the United States has gone beyond providing humanitarian and economic aid to Ukraine to also become a major funder of its military. By supplying Ukraine with tanks, weapons and ammunition, the US has become deeply involved in the war effort, infuriating Russian President Vladimir Putin and giving him the ammunition necessary to sow Russian distrust of the West and prolong an unpopular war.
While both mainstream Republicans and Democrats support continued funding for the Ukrainian military, it is crucial to understand the implications this could have on America’s standing. After years of unnecessary war in Iraq and prolonged fighting in Afghanistan, after leaving Afghanistan in late 2021, the United States was finally withdrawing from the global conflict. On the other side of the altar, there was a consensus that America had failed in its attempts to build stable governments in foreign countries, and they should withdraw from wars without directly affecting America’s national security. Such conflicts have consumed trillions of dollars in taxpayer money and created widespread mistrust of the status quo, which led in part to former President Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 Outsiders campaign.
Our continued involvement in the Ukraine War, however, reversed that trend and pushed America back into international conflict. Unlike the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were provoked by terrorist attacks on American soil, the war in Ukraine poses no immediate threat to America’s national security. Due to Russia’s economic decline since the end of the Cold War, the nation is no longer a significant economic rival to the United States. With the rise of China and the fragility of US-China relations, especially with regard to Taiwan, the US would be better served by devoting time and resources to the growing problem with China. From the point of view of human rights and global market issues, it is essential that the United States develop its plans to maintain peace with China in the face of escalating competition and stalemate.
At home, the war had even deeper implications. In addition to continuing to spend taxpayer dollars to help Ukraine, the war shook the US economy through high fuel prices and crashes in the markets. The sanctions that the United States imposed on Russia certainly crippled the Russian economy, but at the same time caused serious economic pain to American citizens. The original purpose of the sanctions was to force a peace deal, but due to Putin’s refusal to back down, they now serve little function. Additionally, while military aid has allowed the Ukrainians to perform better than expected, it seems unlikely that they will win outright anytime soon, increasing the likelihood of an “eternal war” like Afghanistan that will lead to death and destruction.
While it remains the prerogative of the Ukrainian people to maintain their commitment to preserving all of their territory during the negotiations, it is imperative that America also looks after its own national interests. Biden’s statement “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” may have been a bold statement of unity, but allowing a foreign nation to unconditionally support and influence American policy is impractical. If America wants to continue supporting Ukraine while defending its own interests, it should get Ukraine to negotiate a resolution that will bring peace and economic stability to the region.
While a peace deal may seem far from being achieved, both sides’ demands leave a lot of room for compromise. At the international level, any serious peace deal would likely include the lifting of current EU and US sanctions against Russia, which, in addition to restoring the Russian economy, would ultimately benefit the Americans by lowering oil prices. Besides, Ukraine would probably have to cede the Crimean peninsula to Russia and allow them complete control over it. This issue is a key stumbling block in the current negotiations, given Zelensky’s desire to reclaim all of Ukraine’s territory. Working with the Ukrainian government to soften the stance on this issue in exchange for future security guarantees from the US would be the best way to achieve lasting peace. Although this area is a significant part of Ukraine’s territory, given that it has been under Russian influence since the 2014 invasion, relinquishing it and ending the war would be a positive outcome for both Ukraine and Russia.
Outside of Crimea, Russia’s main demands are centered around Ukraine’s membership in NATO. As the spark that started the war, this issue posed a political challenge for US lawmakers to openly oppose it, but it is highly unlikely that any Ukrainian push for membership would be approved even without a ban. Due to the obvious instability of the region and the required military support from a treaty ally, NATO members are afraid of joining a country whose future military actions could trigger a serious global conflict. By imposing a written restriction on Ukraine’s membership, NATO could fulfill one of Putin’s main demands and make a significant contribution to the peace process.
Ultimately, America must reassess its goals in Ukraine if it wants to stabilize the economy and avoid the same fate that befell that country in Afghanistan and Iraq. The ideal way to achieve this would be to negotiate a peace agreement. While talks have slowed down thanks to pressure from the United States, Ukraine and Russia have enough common ground to make a deal possible. However, if Ukraine decides to continue fighting, Biden should make the difficult decision to cut funding for the war effort. Given the enormity of America’s problems, it’s high time we learned a lesson about the cost of being a global policeman.
Nikhil Sharma is an opinion columnist and can be contacted at nsnikhil@umich.edu.
How many troops has Russia lost?
How much military equipment has Russia lost? According to the Oryx analytical project, the Russian army has lost at least 8,044 units of equipment since the beginning of the invasion. Of these, at least 4,927 were destroyed, 198 damaged and 300 abandoned.
How many tanks has Russia lost?
The total number of Russian tanks destroyed, destroyed or captured by the AFU since the beginning of the war was 2,892 vehicles: almost exactly twice the number of tank losses confirmed by Oryx.
Who has the biggest army in the world?
In 2022, China had the largest armed forces in the world in terms of military personnel on active duty, with approximately 2 million active troops. To see also : Opinion: The United States’ War Against Russian Disinformation: Is the GEC a Worthy Target? | Global Risk Insights. India, the United States, North Korea and Russia round out the top five largest armies.
Who has the strongest army in the world? According to Statista, the most powerful army in the world is the United States Army. Statista uses an index with 50 different factors, such as military power in the budget, to give each country a score. Eight most powerful militaries as of January 2022: United States.
Who is stronger America or Russia?
Rank 73. In short, Russia ranks 2nd out of 140 in terms of military strength, while the United States ranks 1st. In terms of army population, Russia has 142,320,790 troops while the United States has 334,998,398 troops. This may interest you : Algeria National Day – US Department of State. The available workforce is 69,737,187 in Russia and 147,399,295 in the United States.
Which country army is most powerful?
- The United States is probably the most powerful and strongest army in the world. …
- As of March 2022, Russia has the second most powerful military power in the world. …
- If we take into account the number of active military personnel, China is at the top.
Is Russia running out of ammunition?
A senior U.S. military official predicted that Russia would run out of its fully usable ammunition stockpile by early 2023. Read also : Terrorist Attacks Outside Jerusalem’s Old City – US Department of State. However, the official noted that stockpiles are depleting quickly, possibly forcing Russia to use its ammunition in what could be called ” degraded”.
Will Ukraine have enough ammunition? Ukraine has an unmet need for ammunition, but the United States does not have an infinite supply. Why the world’s arms stockpile was not ready for this kind of war. Ukraine uses a lot of ammunition. Western countries agreed to send many more.
Who makes ammunition for Russia?
JSC Ulyanovsk Cartridge Works The only Russian manufacturer of 14.5 mm ammunition for various purposes. A distinguishing feature of the plant is the availability of pyrotechnic workshops, technologies and equipment for the production of tracer, incendiary and explosive bullets with immediate effect.
How many artillery shells is Russia firing?
Russia fires 20,000 artillery rounds a day; Moscow is burning its munitions faster than it can produce it – US. The speed at which Russia burns its munitions in Ukraine exceeds the capacity of the defense industry to produce them.
What weapons has France sent to Ukraine?
Russo-Ukrainian War: France has sent Ukraine more weapons, rocket launchers and Crotale (air defense batteries), French President Emmanuel Macron has said. France also provided anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles and armored personnel carriers.
What weapons did France send to Ukraine? France has supplied Ukraine with Crotale missile launchers and air defense systems and will deliver more weapons early next year, French President Emmanuel Macron said on December 20, as quoted by France 24. He said that, among other things, France would supply additional weapons to Caesar’s mobile artillery units.
What has France sent to Ukraine?
“In recent days, France has sent Ukraine more weapons, rocket launchers, Crotale (air defense batteries) and equipment beyond what we have already done,” Macron told French television TF1 and LCI.
What equipment is France sending to Ukraine?
Paris supplied Ukraine with a significant part of its arsenal of Caesar guns, as well as anti-tank missiles, Crotale air defense missile batteries and rocket launchers. It also trains about 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers on French soil.
