As the world’s democracies confront an authoritarian ruler’s military aggression, they have an institution with which to respond — a NATO that just demonstrated its readiness at Madrid — that Churchill might have wished for in June 1940. In the film The Darkest Hour, the British army is facing annihilation by surrounding Nazi armies at the French port of Dunkirk. Winston Churchill (played by Gary Oldman), newly prime minister, faces strong pressure from Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax to negotiate with Adolf Hitler — with mediation by Benito Mussolini — for concessions that would save the army. Churchill consults with the British people — on the subway — who strongly oppose negotiations. Reinvigorated, the prime minister addresses parliament, vows to fight on the beaches until victory, and expresses confidence that the United States, the arsenal of democracy, will come to Britain’s aid.
 

NATO leaders leave the podium after their formal group photo at the alliance’s summit conference in Madrid, where they reaffirmed NATO’s support for Ukraine’s self-defense against Russia’s invasion. (Kenny Holston/The New York Times)
NATO leaders leave the podium after their formal group photo at the alliance’s summit conference in Madrid, where they reaffirmed NATO’s support for Ukraine’s self-defense against Russia’s invasion. (Kenny Holston/The New York Times)

Not for the first time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sounds like Churchill. The Ukrainian army is fighting fiercely against overwhelming odds. After Ukraine drove back Russia’s initial assault on northern Ukraine and Kyiv, the Russian war machine is now grinding down Ukrainian defenses in Donbas with massive bombardments from artillery, air strikes, cruise and ballistic missiles. Some European leaders and even some Americans are urging Zelenskyy to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, to make territorial concessions in return for a cease-fire and an end to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

An important part of Zelenskyy’s strength is the mutual bond between him and the Ukrainian people. A Wall Street Journal poll this week reflected the overwhelming opposition of Ukrainians — 89 percent — to negotiations that would trade Ukrainian land for a cease-fire. Zelenskyy has been appealing to the United States and the rest of NATO for weapons to enable him to stop the Russians’ advance and push them back at least to where they were on February 24, when they invaded for the second time. As in World War II, the United States is responding, drawing on its arsenal to support the embattled Europeans.

The Ukrainian people and President Zelenskyy are right not to negotiate now. A ceasefire would ensure that Russia controls some 20 percent of Ukrainian land, with no hope that Moscow will ever give it up. It would reward aggression. Further, Russia’s original war aim has not changed — complete domination of Ukraine, even to the point of its extinction. A ceasefire now would give the Russians time to rebuild their battered army in preparation for a further attack after several months.

The Ukrainians are counting on American and other NATO weapons to enable them to turn the tide, go on the offensive, and push the Russians back. The desperate and heroic defenses of Mariupol, Severodonetsk and Lysychansk have bled the Russian army and given Western allies time to get the heavier, longer-range weapons to the front lines.

When the disposition of forces is returned to that of February 24, President Zelenskyy says he could be in a position to negotiate. At that point the United States and Western allies can provide him with the backing he will need. The main element of that support will be a guarantee that the West, starting with the United States, will continue to support a democratic, independent, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine with the means to defend itself and deter further Russian aggression.

The West will need to provide Ukraine the financing to get through the war and the reconstruction after the war ends. The $300 billion in Russian central bank reserves that are frozen in banks of the Group of Seven (G7) countries will be the basis for a Marshall Plan for Ukraine. Other funding will need to follow.

To give Ukraine the means to defend itself and deter further Russian aggression the United States, perhaps supported by others, should commit to arm Ukraine with the weapons and other military capabilities it will need for the foreseeable future. As with the U.S. commitment to Israel, the United States should agree with Ukraine in a bilateral memorandum of understanding on the types and quantities of weapons and the schedule for delivery. These weapons should be state-of-the-art, NATO compatible systems that will overmatch Russian capabilities and protect Ukrainian sovereignty.

Ukraine is fighting for its survival as a state and a nation. It is the barrier to Putin’s clearly expressed aim: the reestablishment of Russian empire. Europe cannot be secure unless Ukraine wins this war and has international support to maintain its sovereignty in the future. An expanded and strengthened NATO needs Ukraine as part of its defense of Europe. The European Union’s invitation for Ukraine to join will ensure Ukraine’s place in Europe and motivate Ukrainians to adopt the reforms that are still needed for their economic and democratic success. To reestablish order in international relations, Ukraine must be sovereign, and Russia must withdraw from Ukrainian lands it has invaded. This will take time, but it can happen.

Related Publications

Preparing for Victory in Ukraine

Preparing for Victory in Ukraine

Wednesday, November 30, 2022

By: Stephen J. Hadley;  Ambassador William B. Taylor;  John E. Herbst;  Matthew Kroenig;  Melinda Haring;  Jeffrey Cimmino

Success. That’s the potential outcome that the United States, Ukraine, allied and partner governments, and private-sector actors must now prepare to confront. Ukraine’s counteroffensives, backed by expanded and accelerated U.S. and allied support, continue to push Russian forces out of Ukrainian territory, although at a reduced rate. These hard-won successes, however, bring with them possible challenges that also must be addressed.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

Mary Glantz on the G20 Summit

Mary Glantz on the G20 Summit

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

By: Mary Glantz, Ph.D.

The joint leaders’ statement at the G20 Summit, while largely symbolic, showed that “Russia [is] a lot more isolated than perhaps we’d been led to suspect,” says USIP’s Mary Glantz, adding that Russia’s anti-imperialist justification for the war in Ukraine is “not getting the traction we thought it was.”

Type: Podcast

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

A Missile Strikes Poland: How Russia’s War Could Spread

A Missile Strikes Poland: How Russia’s War Could Spread

Thursday, November 17, 2022

By: Mary Glantz, Ph.D.

When a missile slammed into a Polish village Tuesday, killing two farmers, it brought Russia’s war on Ukraine directly to the territory of a NATO ally. The immediate uncertainties included media speculation, and an assertion by Ukraine’s government, that Russia had struck Poland, risking a direct NATO response and an expansion of the war. That immediate threat eased as evidence grew that a Ukrainian air defense missile had strayed — but the incident illustrated that the dangers of an escalated war are real. The only true remedy for this threat is for Russia to stop waging war against Ukraine.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

What a Russian Nuclear Escalation Would Mean for China and India

What a Russian Nuclear Escalation Would Mean for China and India

Thursday, November 10, 2022

By: Andrew Scobell, Ph.D.;  Vikram J. Singh;  Alex Stephenson

Since Russia began its assault on Ukraine last February, India and China have straddled the fence by hinting at their concerns regarding the war’s global fallout while avoiding direct public criticism of Moscow. Despite rhetorical consternation and calls for a peaceful resolution, neither has shown a willingness to meaningfully push back against Putin’s escalations in Ukraine. Instead, the two Asian nuclear powers are approaching the situation with caution and calculated diplomacy to preserve their own strategic interests — both in Russia and the West.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal Policy

View All Publications