More than two years after Russian war on Ukraine, the West, remarkably, still lacks a unified strategy. Though it has supplied desperately needed weapons and ammunition, it has done little else to address Ukraine’s needs.
What would an effective strategy look like? For starters, Western governments need to establish shared goals. Ukraine must expel Russian forces and recover all the territory that it has lost since 2014; Russia must be forced to pay war reparations to compensate Ukraine (the World Bank estimates that reconstruction will cost about $500 billion over the next decade); the thousands of Ukrainians who have been deported to Russia must be allowed to return; and the tens of thousands of suspected war crimes must be prosecuted and punished.
The West can no longer get away with promising to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Rather than holding Ukraine back from attacking Russian strategic and military assets, it should welcome such strikes. Losing the war is the best thing that could happen to Russia. Historically, military defeats have usually led to reforms and a change in leadership — as happened after the Crimean War (1853-56), the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), and the war in Afghanistan (1979-88).
Many believe that Russia has the advantage in a long war, simply because its population and economy are larger than Ukraine’s (though the United States was defeated in Vietnam and Afghanistan after long wars). Whatever the case, a longer war undoubtedly will cost everyone much more. As such, the West should return to former US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Gulf War tactic of “shock and awe” to bring about a Ukrainian victory.
That means delivering all the best conventional arms to Ukraine as soon as possible, rather than continuing the current drip-feed of old weapons. Nobody can put such weapons to better use than Ukraine’s skillful soldiers. If Ukraine were to lose, Russian forces would march further into Europe to fulfil Putin’s ambition of restoring the Russian Empire. Since Ukraine’s people are fighting and dying to defend Europe, the least the West can do is give them all they need to win. Denmark and the Baltic states have set an example others should follow.
Specifically, the West should furnish Ukraine with potent long-range weapons — such as ATACMS and Taurus missiles — as well as a strong air force, so that it can gain supremacy over the skies. With thousands of Westerners having volunteered to fight for Ukraine on the front lines, why shouldn’t Western pilots join, too? Ukraine needs proper air defence. Absurdly, the West has made Russia, rather than Ukraine, a no-fly zone. The eminent retired US Generals Ben Hodges and Philip Breedlove have long argued that Crimea is likely to be decisive. Similarly, in the mid-nineteenth century, Pavel Nakhimov, an admiral in the Imperial Russian Navy, observed that whoever controls Sevastopol (Crimea’s largest port) controls the Black Sea. Clearly, Ukrainian control of that city should be a major strategic goal. To cut Russia off from Crimea, Ukraine also will need to destroy the Kerch Strait bridges to the peninsula.
To force Russia to pay war reparations to Ukraine, the West should confiscate the $300 billion of Russian central-bank reserves that it has frozen. Canada and the US have already adopted laws authorising such a move; they should follow through, and the European Union should follow suit. It is unconscionable that Russia can violate international laws with abandon and still have its property shielded in the West. As long as the war continues, the West will need to provide Ukraine with $100 billion per year – $50 billion at least in military assistance.
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
