One of the greatest challenges for a superpower is determining its capabilities and limitations. As a global hegemon, it’s easy to believe that you can micromanage wars, orchestrate diplomatic relations, and control perception. The American approach to Ukraine showcases this tendency. While the U.S. has provided diplomatic support and modern weaponry, there’s been a restraint in offering additional military capabilities to avoid provoking Russia. The U.S. has been giving mixed signals about NATO accepting Ukraine into its ranks, only offering limited help. In contrast, lesser powers tend to pick a side and do whatever it takes to help them win.
The recent NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, revealed both the worst and best of American strategy making. The initial statement from the alliance, presumably influenced by the U.S., acknowledged Russia as the biggest threat but offered vague prospects of Ukraine’s future in NATO. This caused dissatisfaction among Ukrainian leaders, who feared that their country’s membership could be bargained away. The Biden administration initially considered further weakening the statement’s support for Ukraine, but fortunately pivoted and provided reassurance on the second day of the summit. President Biden clarified that Ukraine could join NATO quickly after the conflict, and extensive military support was pledged. Ultimately, the alliance seemed more united, and Ukrainian leaders were satisfied.
This summit taught important lessons about what the U.S. should and shouldn’t do. American leaders often act as though they have control over other countries and events, similar to their Soviet counterparts during the Cold War. However, the U.S. has shown some understanding of the limits of its power in the war in Ukraine. The Biden administration has avoided direct involvement by not introducing U.S. combat forces, instead providing support such as weapons, training, and intelligence. These limitations on U.S. intervention represent a positive development for future conflicts.
Nevertheless, the U.S. must recognize that it cannot dictate the course of the war. Some decisions on weapon supply seem designed to restrict Ukraine’s options and shape the outcome of the war. The U.S. has provided powerful but limited-range systems, effective in a defensive war but not for liberating Russian-occupied Crimea. Requests for longer-range systems have been delayed or declined. This approach would make sense if the U.S. were trying to broker a peace deal with Russia, but it has only prolonged the war for Ukraine. European countries, particularly the United Kingdom, have been more supportive of extending the Ukrainian military’s range.
The U.S. approach has also led to unintended consequences, such as the recent provision of cluster munitions. Ukraine has used up ammunition faster than anticipated, necessitating the use of cluster munitions that pose a greater risk to civilians. To end the war, the best course of action for the U.S. is to provide the necessary support for Ukraine to push the Russian military out. Even if the U.S. wanted to, it cannot force Ukraine to agree to a specific peace deal. Cutting back aid significantly would likely lead to a longer and bloodier war, as Ukraine would continue fighting with the support of European states that are more determined to defeat Russia.
The real choice for the U.S. is whether to help the Ukrainian military win the war quickly and efficiently, minimizing casualties on both sides. This would be the wisest and most humane outcome. However, it requires the U.S. to acknowledge that the Ukrainians are the ones on the frontlines and that control isn’t always possible.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
