Calibrating Capability and Interest in Ukraine

George Friedman

Source Link

Last week, in my column in which I answer readers’ questions, I wrote that the United States must calibrate and measure its geopolitical interests in Ukraine with the risks of military intervention, concluding that the strategy pursued under presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump – that is, supplying intelligence and weapons but not troops to Ukraine – was the rational policy. Several readers took issue with this, arguing that the U.S. will inevitably have to deal with Russia if Ukraine falls, and that therefore Washington should intervene now before Russia ventures farther west. This is not an unreasonable argument, but I believe the risks still outweigh the benefits.

I should start by noting that since World War II, the U.S. has not done well in wars in the Eastern Hemisphere. In Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington failed to achieve its desired outcomes, and these failures need to be remembered when discussing the prospect of war. The problem in all these conflicts is that the objectives, as in all wars, were political. The means were military, but the force and strategy with which the U.S. approached those wars did not achieve the political goals. This is not because the U.S. was not militarily powerful, of course; it can win any war if it is prepared to send overwhelming force, accept substantial casualties, restructure its military doctrine and training appropriately, and maintain occupation for an extended period of time. Such was the case in and after World War II in Europe.

Of these requirements, the most important is to send overwhelming force. The idea of limited war is an illusion. For those fighting, no war is limited. Yet in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, there were limits placed on the military – both in terms of the force fielded and the allowable strategies and tactics used to achieve the political end. Since World War II, the U.S. has tended to underestimate its capabilities and the endurance of its enemies. I’m no pacifist, but caution should be taken in engaging in “limited” wars.