Why the US should not arm Kyiv: Michael Grossman (opinion)
President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has become the most recent member of the administration supporting defensive lethal aid to Kyiv in its struggle with Russian-backed rebels in the Donbas in eastern Ukraine.
As the voices calling for supplying arms grow, it may be useful to take a step back and think about the larger context and the function of international relations as they apply to all countries in the world.
It is a truism for all those who study international relations that the world is anarchic. What this means is that there is no centralized authority to maintain stability or ensure a country’s security, forcing countries to rely on themselves for their defense.
This may take the form of building up one’s military or creating security alliances. Either way, the lack of a centralized world government inevitably leads countries to identify security as the vital national interest that they will work to ensure, no matter the cost.
For Russia, keeping Ukraine out of the West’s orbit (either as a member of NATO or the European Union) is identified as a vital security interest.
To understand this, one only need look at Russian history and geography.
Whether Napoleon, Hitler, or sundry other invaders, Russian history is characterized by invasion and war. A lack of natural barriers facilitated these invasions: Russians have no mountains or oceans behind which they can hide.
Consequently, Russians have always sought security in strategic depth, whether through the satellite states of Eastern Europe during the Cold War or its current “near abroad.”
Whether we approve of Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s behavior or not — and there is no reason to approve — the fact remains that Russians will defend those things they define as their vital security interests regardless of the costs.
Sending weapons or other military assistance to Kyiv would not deter Moscow. The hope that increasing the pain would cause Russia to rethink its strategy is wishful thinking at best. As the complete ineffectiveness of the sanctions to change Russian behavior has shown, Russia is willing to endure what it must when it believes its security is threatened (as any country would).
More important, weapons sent from abroad would only escalate the conflict, to the detriment of the Ukrainian people. Russia could match any increase in weapons to Kyiv faster and more effectively, simply due to its proximity to the region.
Moreover, weapons provided by the United States would only further entrench the Russian perception that it is under threat from the West, thus increasing its commitment to a favorable outcome in Ukraine, and transform the current conflict into a proxy war between Russia and the United States.
With Russia’s logistical advantage, the conflict could quickly become a replay of the short-lived war between Russia and Georgia, where, despite Western training and armaments, the Georgians were easily defeated by superior Russian forces as the West stood by, wisely — unwilling then, as it is now, to engage Russia militarily.
The fact is that in a world where states worry about their security, they will do what they must and suffer what they will to protect that which they identify as their vital national interest.
The United States needs to consider that before it decides to send weapons or pursue a potentially reckless policy toward Russia. Russia is unlikely to back down, and such moves would only escalate the conflict, potentially encouraging Russia to formally enter the conflict.
If Russia decides to move against Kyiv, it will lead to defeat for Ukraine and potentially its complete dismemberment because, even with U.S. weapons, it cannot defeat Russia, which has significant operational advantages. This has been acknowledged by those calling for arming the forces of the current Ukrainian government.
While sending weapons to Kyiv may, as claimed by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a Munich security conference last month, make our politicians “feel better,” such a move would likely be ineffective at best and potentially detrimental.
Michael Grossman chairs the department of political science and international studies at the University of Mount Union in Alliance.