Why we fight: Ukraine, Russia, and the future world order
“It’s that simple: to go to war is much easier than trying to escape the war.” — Artem Chekh
I am reading a story from the front lines, by Artem Chekh, a Ukrainian writer (and now a soldier), and something inside me cracks open at the raw reality of war.
The reality of death, courage, and duty is much different from the patriotic fast-food we’ve been fed at school. There’s no room for pathos, window-dressing, staged heroism. Death strips us all bare. We emerge pixel-ized.
The blind spots of the Western discourse on Russia and Ukraine
For the last month or so, since returning from Ukraine, I’ve hardly written anything. Not because I’ve faced a sudden writer’s block (for that, one has to be a writer — I’m not). Rather, I’m speechless when I see a widening chasm between the mainstream media’s petty interpretations of the Russia-Ukraine war, and the far-reaching historical consequences this war will have globally, for generations to come.
From Elon Musk’s Russia appeasement to an ever-louder US left, eager to set limits on the US support of Ukraine ahead of the midterm elections, to China’s Xi Jinping tightening the screws on his already tight grip of power (possibly for life), — the configuration at the global chessboard is one of crossroads: between freedom and autocracy, between the rules-based global order and the law of the jungle, between humanity and cold-blooded profiteering.
- How much military aid to send to Ukraine?
Republicans are likely to win majority in the upcoming US midterm elections, which calls into question the extent of the future US military aid. The Republican party has been sending mixed signals on how much aid to send to Ukraine, with some far-right commentators openly parroting the Russian narrative that “Russia is actually fighting the West / NATO”.
The Republican argument for scaling down the support for Ukraine, — on the basis of fiscal frugality, — is misguided. Economically, the US spends just 0.25% of GDP on the aid to Ukraine (for comparison, Estonia spends 1% of GDP). Politically, scaling back Ukraine’s support package serves neither US national interests, nor the global interest of political and economic stability.
The GOP is also ignoring the plain cause-and-effect relation: weaker Ukraine means emboldened totalitarian regimes — from Russia to Iran to China, and almost a century of lost progress towards human rights and greater global stability.
The right answer to “How much military aid to send to Ukraine” is simple: “As much as it takes to restore the integrity of Ukraine’s borders.” Any other answer would undermine the commitment to the very global order the democratic world stands for.
- How to avert a nuclear war?
This past month, there’s been an awful lot of know-it-all opining on “what we should or shouldn’t do” to avert an all-out war between the nuclear powers. A simplistic assertion by Elon Musk, and others without any background on history of Ukraine and Russia, international relations, or game theory—is that averting WW III is a matter of conceding occupied Ukraine’s territories to Russia. This assertion is wrong.
Giving in to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear war much more likely. It would significantly increase the chance of any of the other nuclear powers taking advantage of their nuclear status to achieve their political aims. It would also encourage non-nuclear states to develop nuclear weapons for deterrence. Ultimately, it would open the Pandora’s box of global nuclear proliferation.
History is a series of “repeated games” — a game theory lingo for facing the same strategic decision multiple times, as opposed to a “one-shot” game, in which counterparts interact once only. However much Putin would like to scare the world into believing this is a one-shot game, — it’s not. That’s why for the more militarily powerful Western allies, it’s irrational to give in to nuclear blackmail by a militarily weaker Russia.
Russia threatens to use nukes against Ukraine, not against the Western allies. A likely Western response would be a non-nuclear one (one can successfully use conventional weapons to “take out every Russian conventional force on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea”).
Common sense — and its mathematically rigorous counterpart, game theory — suggest that Russian threats are primarily a psychological weapon. Giving in to these threats is neither rational nor peace-forming.
- Why is Ukraine our problem?
Against the backdrop of increasingly polarised US and European politics, it’s perhaps not surprising to hear pro-Russian arguments from both the far-right and far-left. The often-cited reason against increasing the military aid to Ukraine is simply “we’ve got domestic problems to take care of”. Inflation, for one, is top of mind in any developed country right now.
The irony, of course, is that Russia’s war in Ukraine is a major driver of the very thing western voters are so weary of — the rising prices of food and fuel. Worse still, dozens of developing countries are at risk of hunger after Russia’s recent withdrawal from the Black Sea grain trade deal.
The twisted logic in “just stop the war, regardless of the cost to Ukraine” — is that it assumes a long list of Russia-generated problems will simply evaporate once Ukraine surrenders. If one thinks cheap Russian energy will materialise the minute Ukraine is sold out by the allies, one has to revisit the history of two decades of Russian geopolitical adventures — from Caucasus to Transnistria. Russian imperial adventurism is far from limited to Ukraine. Failing to “tame the bear” now, Europe will have to deal with an unlimited supply of geopolitical and energy trouble for decades to come.
Should I look beyond food and fuel in my list of reasons to support Ukraine? I’m hardly convinced that world leaders would act out of humanitarian, legal, or moral obligation. Still, let me present these more high-flying arguments in brief.
- Why is Ukraine our problem? Three further arguments
Most western politicking on Ukraine overlooks the dire reality on the ground. Everyone in Ukraine — from Lviv to Zaporizhzhia — would have experienced living without electricity, heat, and water since October 10th. Russia has been destroying the Ukrainian energy system on a daily basis. Meanwhile, civilians have been targeted by Russian missiles programmers since the very start of the war.
A cynical observer might argue that it’s human nature — to overlook the moral obligations to strangers far away, and favour helping those close to us. The problem with this argument, of course, is that morality and ethics are universal, and geographically blind.
And finally, there is the legal argument. It’s in the infamous Budapest memorandum. In 1994, Ukraine gave up its (third largest in the world) nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from Russia (the irony!), United Kingdom, and the United States. Among other things, the Memorandum prohibits the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine.
Persistence: an under-appreciated force in history
This war has made me a keen student of history. History has taught me to put my faith in persistence rather than in chance.
Ukrainians will fight on. We fight to live, not to merely survive.
P.S. Thanks for reading! I keep my posts free, but here’s a quick way to say thanks — donate to Return Alive Foundation, United24 or the KSE Foundation, and #StandWithUkraine! This is the best way to invest in freedom and ensure we live in a safe world.
