ARGUMENT: SELF-DETERRENCEWestern “Self-Deterrence” is Aiding Putin’s War of Aggression

Russia has been waging its illegal war against Ukraine for a year. Critical Western support has helped Ukraine defend itself from being overrun by Russian forces. Erlingur Erlingssonand Fridrik Jonsson write in Just Security that,unfortunately, as vital and important as that assistance has been, it has been tentative and piecemeal. “At every stage, military aid has been accompanied by handwringing about how likely each additional capability or weapons system is to upset Vladimir Putin, or tip his fragile ego over the edge to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or against NATO nations.”

Erlingsson and Jonsson continue:

It is crucial that Western messaging about the conflict is consistent and clear. This includes how Western leaders communicate about military action that Ukraine is legally entitled to take. As it defends against Russia’s illegal invasion (in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter), Ukraine is well within its rights to attack Russian forces inside Ukraine’s sovereign 1991 borders, and to strike Russian military targets in Russia.

As Ukraine prepares for a possible spring offensive to liberate Russian-occupied territory, NATO allies must send a unified and strong message to Russia that military support for Ukraine is in support of a sovereign state that is defending itself, as explicitly permitted by the U.N. Charter. This includes the right of Ukraine to liberate all illegally occupied sovereign Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and the Donbas. NATO leaders must make this clear and unambiguous, both in advance of the Vilnius Summit in July, and in the Summit Declaration.

Clearer and firmer messaging from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other NATO allies will diminish the impact of ill-advised statements by high-ranking policymakers and political leaders in deference to Russian “feelings.” Recently, Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who chairs the U.S. Senate’s Armed Services Committee, was quoted in the Financial Times openly worrying about a greater risk of Russian nuclear weapons use if faced with potential collapse of the Russian army, Ukrainian advances in Crimea, or direct attacks on Russia. Since the outbreak of the war, the drumbeat of the so-called “realist” school of international relations has also preached similar caution and blamed the West for the Russian assault on Ukraine. Republicans in Congress have openly and consistently hinted at a willingness to cut support for Ukraine.

They conclude:

Putin’s only viable strategy is to outlast Western patience by pursuing a bloody and brutal war of attrition that would achieve his goal of ending legitimate Ukrainian aspirations to join the European Union and NATO, with his ultimate goal being the end of Ukrainian statehood. The ongoing imprecise and inconsistent messaging by Western leaders offers Putin hope that this is a viable strategy and undermines Ukrainian confidence. Russia is not at war with NATO, but it is engaged in a battle of wills with the West. Every time Western officials suggest that Ukraine limit its war aims, including being willing to trade sovereign territory for peace, they pander to Putin and place at risk the international norms that benefit all principled nations and their citizens.

Stopping attempts to change borders by force is the right thing to do, as the founders of the United Nations agreed almost 80 years ago. It is also a powerful signal to other ambitious autocrats who are eyeing their neighbors and dreaming of annexation through force, as was the norm before 1945. The post-war international system, flawed as it is, deserves better. We should avoid self-deterring from protecting and improving it, as the alternative offered by Russia and other autocratic states will only lead to an age of unrestrained conflict.