Why I Support Ukraine
The Ukrainian people have a right to decide their fate and America should continue to support them.
When it comes to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, the future of the Ukrainian people remains unclear. The Russian invasion has caused countless deaths among both combatants and civilians. It makes clear that the painful reality of war can’t be ignored. For some, this painful reality is understandably overwhelming. They believe that continued aid to Ukraine must stop and negotiations with Russia must start. I stand firmly opposed to this position, understandable as it is. So long as the Russian Federation continues to operate with the underlying view of supremacy over Ukraine and its neighbors, such peace will not save lives. It will only hasten another war.
Why Did Russia Invade?
To understand the underlying implications of the larger war in Ukraine, we must first grasp the context of the people who are suffering and understand the context of the perpetrators of that suffering. Since Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United Nations has confirmed “30,457 civilian casualties… including 10,582 killed and 19,875 injured.” The said count is likely to be higher, as this report was completed in 2023, and even then, the total count was underestimated.
However, what is rarely talked about with any frequency today is the underlying attitude of the Russian government that started the war in the first place. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate Ukrainian national sovereignty, even going so far as to seize territory in Crimea and the Donbas region. As I noted in my piece for the UIS Observer in 2022:
“ By 2013, those tensions would come to a head, with {Ukrainian President} Yanukovych killing an association deal with the European Union. In response, Ukrainians, particularly in the western regions, rose up against the Ukrainian president in protest. Hundreds of thousands of people marched throughout the country, supporting cooperation with Europe. Though Eastern Ukrainians were not as supportive, with many in Donetsk raising concerns about joining the E.U. By 2014, Yanukovych fled to Russia, and the nation’s parliament ousted him.
An interim government took power and initially refused to support entrance into NATO. But after the Russian invasion of Crimea in February of that same year, relations broke down, as Russian Vladimir Putin attempted to establish influence over Crimea and the Donbas region. Russian troops, with their insignias removed, illegally occupied and annexed Crimea. In a March speech, Putin claimed that the people of Crimea were robbed from Russia after the Soviet Union’s dissolution and that NATO’s eastward expansion merited the annexation. He further asserted there is “no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine.”
However, many Ukrainians and scholars firmly disagree. In an interview with The UIS Observer, Dr. Adriana Crocker, a professor of Global Studies at the University of Illinois Springfield, pushed back on that narrative. “Ukraine is an independent, sovereign country…” she said. “They should have the right to decide their future. Whether to be with the E.U., whether to be with NATO… should not be part of Russian decision-making. It is an internationally recognized sovereign country.
To an extent, Ukraine’s association with other countries and alliances is central to Russian interventionism, with Putin arguing that NATO officials promised to avoid expanding eastward and has demanded that Ukraine never enter the alliance. Such a narrative by Russia, says Dr. Crocker, ignores the complex process of getting into NATO in the first place and does not justify the use of its military.”
While Russia has repeatedly argued that Ukraine isn’t a real country and is instead a flawed state that the Soviets created in the early 20th century, historians have repeatedly debunked him, even using the very maps he uses to make these arguments against him. This imperialistic and culturally patronizing worldview of Ukrainians and their sovereignty is precisely the problem with any peace talks that can be had as it stands right now.
Even when we get into the supposed deal of restricting NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, the question falls into murky and, quite frankly, propagandized waters. While Putin has claimed that America agreed not to allow NATO to expand, even that is highly contested—not only by officials in Washington but also by historians and some of the actors themselves.
Former Secretary of State James Baker, who is the one who used the phrase not” one inch to the east” when referring to NATO expansion has disputed the characterization and has argued it was in the context of the unification of Germany. NATO statements have also emphasized that no binding agreement of any kind was made to the Russian government that would prevent other countries from joining NATO.
It is not only murky on the Western side, but on the legal and Russian side. In the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (1990), there is not a single mention of NATO or its ability to expand further into Europe. Mikhail Gorbachev, the former President of the Soviet Union, has gone back and forth on the issue. In one interview, he insisted that he was promised no NATO expansion, and in another, he denied it entirely.
Simply put, NATO expansion as a matter of any promised agreement is testy at best and downright nonexistent at worst. There was no treaty signed requiring NATO to avoid expanding, and Russia itself bears partial responsibility for NATO’s expansion due to its militaristic behavior. As I further explained just prior to the Russian invasion:
As Dr. Budzisz notes, this is not the first time that Russia has utilized its forces to maintain its influence along its borders. Russia has deployed its forces in Moldova in a region known as Transdniestria. It has occupied territory in Georgia, thanks to its invasion in 2008. The European Parliament official declared the Russian position in Georgia as an occupation. Far from being solely about NATO, the use of military force is a part of Russian foreign policy when its influence fails.
Russia has created a hostile environment in Eastern Europe by virtue of attempting to create a sphere of influence through violence. To put it more simply, more countries joined NATO to avoid said violence. Russia pointing to NATO as the reason for its invasion while simultaneously insisting that Ukraine isn’t real betrays its real intentions: a blatant war of aggression. Russia invaded Ukraine because its leadership felt it had a right to do so. They don’t.
The Importance of Aid
While the invasion itself has made people sympathetic to the Ukrainian people, it is also worth reiterating how military and financial aid to the country helps its people avoid the atrocities committed by Russian forces. Since the war began, there have been multiple allegations against Russian military personnel, with a warrant being issued for Vladimir Putin for his abduction of Ukrainian children. A UN Commission found long-standing abuses, including “…summary executions, sexual violence and forced transfer of Ukrainian children into Russia.” To say Ukrainians need help to avoid such horrific outcomes is a massive understatement.
Aid is critical to that endeavor. Since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United States has spent an estimated $175 billion on helping Ukraine. Of which, an estimated $106 billion is going to the Ukrainian government. Breaking that down further, of the $106 billion that has gone to Ukraine, $69.8 billion has gone to military aid, and $33.3 billion has gone to budget support. In other words, this aid keeps the Ukrainian government running to keep critical services going to everyday Ukrainians. The remaining was spent on humanitarian aid. For context, the total spent on Social Security in 2023 was an estimated $1.35 trillion, more than eight times the value of our aid to Ukraine.
Providing aid to Ukraine doesn’t prevent us from caring for our citizens. A lack of political will does. Republicans will inevitably try to make it an either-or scenario, and they have done so before, but the truth of the matter is that military equipment, especially old military equipment, doesn’t provide for our citizens. Better social services and support do. We can work to support both Ukraine and the American people.
Originally published at https://theprogressiveamerican.comon November 17, 2024.