Why Ukraine Matters So Much to the USA
On the 26th of April, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov accused NATO of ‘engaging in a war with Russia through a proxy. ’Whilst most of the rhetoric put out by the Kremlin regarding Ukraine is correctly dismissed, Lavrov’s claim is not without its merits. A proxy war refers to the indirect involvement of a state in a conflict, typically involving the training and supplying of one side’s military force. Going off that definition, it's quite possible to find yourself inclined to agree with Mr Lavrov’s characterisation.
On the 26th of February, just two days after Russia’s invasion began, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced $350 million in military assistance. Within the first week of the war, NATO members had supplied 17,000 anti-weapons to the Ukrainian military. By April Ukraine had received 25,000 anti-air missiles. On the whole, there has been little to suggest that this support would slow. President Joe Biden’s announcement on the 8th of September of another $675 million military aid package, including ammunition for High Mobility Rocket Systems (HIMARS), is a testament to continued Western commitment.
Support from the West has helped enable Ukraine to resist Russia’s advances in a spectacular manner. Since retreating from the areas surrounding Kyiv in March, Russia has made few territorial gains. In recent weeks, significant swathes of the Kharkiv region have even been retaken by the Ukrainian military. The USA and indeed NATO are, without having any physical presence in Ukraine, working to hinder the Russian campaign through a ‘proxy’.
But there is an important question that needs to be asked in regard to the levels of support. Why? Russian hostilities in Ukraine have been going on for the last eight years going back to the Annexation of Crimea in 2014, however the Western response of condemnation and training, on of the Ukrainian military has never been stronger than today. The reality of the situation, in my view, is that America and the west have recognised that the outcome of this war could have significant bearings on a wider discussion of global power and hierarchy.
In the past few months Vladimir Putin has proclaimed his ‘special military operation’ as the beginning of a ‘new world order’. This is a vision which explicitly challenges the unipolar dominance of American power and its attempted projection of liberal values. He has built upon this ideal, particularly by strengthening his friendship with Xi Jinping and China. In September, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Uzbekistan outlined Russia and China’s intent to tear up the global order script. One way this friendship seems to be developing is through the supply of oil, with Russia selling it at a reduced price in light of Western sanctions.
Whilst relations between the two and America have become strained in the last few years, the war in Ukraine clearly has significance in terms of its impact on global polarity. Put simply, if Putin’s Ukraine campaign succeeds in the face of western opposition, then it sets a precedent of a ‘new world order’ for authoritarian and expansionist regimes. One whereby the process of countries’ building ties with the West, as Ukraine has been attempting to do since the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, can be prevented by another state’s aggression.
It is in these circumstances that America and its western allies have recognised the wider significance of stopping Putin in Ukraine. Yet the way the war is currently being fought in Ukraine, in terms of the ‘no boots on the ground’ policy of America and the west, also offers a rare opportunity. Through a ‘proxy’ America in particular has a clear chance to cause long-lasting damage to Putin’s military capabilities, seemingly without the risk of becoming drawn into an all-out war with Russia.
There remains no clear vision for how the war in Ukraine could end. Among western media circles it is believed that Putin is starting to flirt with more drastic options, namely the deployment of a tactical nuclear weapon. His campaign objectives in Ukraine, having shifted from a nation-wide demilitarisation to the ‘liberation’ of the Russian backed Donetsk and Luhansk republics. On the Ukrainian side, President Volodymyr Zelensky has made no secret of his aim to drive Russia out of the country for good. This would involve a retaking of Crimea, a move that would undoubtedly spark a significant retaliation from Russia.
But in either scenario, one theme is consistent: a continued commitment of Russian manpower and resources to the conflict. Going off recent evidence, it is hardly assured that Russian fortunes will change. This is what America, and its allies wants to see. Not only Ukraine standing up for its own sovereignty successfully, but also Putin’s own credibility as a leader being eroded away, with his rhetoric of a ‘new world order’ becoming increasingly hollow.