USMC Colonel (Ret) Eric Buer: US Foreign Policy and the War in Ukraine – No Time to Abandon Our Values or Our Allies – Eric F. Buer
In August of 2021, the world watched as the United States unceremoniously withdrew forces from Afghanistan. The scene was reminiscent of the US withdrawal from Vietnam nearly fifty years earlier. This time, terrified Vietnamese were replaced by desperate Afghan nationals clinging to US transport aircraft. What that scene also demonstrated was how little the administration valued the service and sacrifice of not just American troops but also those of our closest allies.
As the situation unfolds in Ukraine and the front lines move across borders, the US must adopt a multifaceted strategy combining military, economic, and diplomatic support while respecting our allies doing the same. The stakes are high, and the consequences of inaction are dire. By continuing its strong commitment to Ukraine, the United States not only safeguards democratic allies but also reinforces the principles of international order, stability, and peace in an increasingly fragmented world. The war in Ukraine has seen NATO rise to the challenge, supporting Ukraine’s desperate and seemingly unwinnable war against the vaunted Russian bear. This is exactly the time to show our resolve to Ukraine and our NATO partners.
Though coverage of the ongoing war in Ukraine has taken a backseat in the post-election news cycle, that should change soon. The Trump administration has the unenviable mandate, some would say, to make good on campaign promises of ending the war while holding Russia accountable. With both political parties previously using the war to justify their positions and ambitions, it remains to be seen how this administration will support Ukraine.
The war, which essentially began following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and intensified with the full-scale invasion in February 2022, signaled a pivotal moment for NATO and its role in modern Europe. Not so surprisingly, the United States emerged as a key player, shifting from diplomatic support to being a major weapons and technology supplier while ignoring Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats. NATO’s commitment to Ukraine and the United States’ intervention as a member of NATO remains vital for Ukraine’s sovereignty and essential for regional stability.
History, and more precisely, Russian history and Putin’s obsession with rebuilding a Russian empire, are central to NATO’s required intervention. The history between Ukraine and Russia is ripe with examples of an insecure and overconfident bully attempting to coerce a perceived weaker but strategically important neighbor. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine sought to assert its independence and carve out its own identity – which included not just separation from Russian influence but an emergence as a near-peer. However, Russia has not accepted that; more precisely, Vladimir Putin has refused to respect Ukraine’s ability to self-govern. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 marked a stark violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and prompted widespread condemnation from the global community, but with little action to follow – it emboldened Putin.
“There will be peace in Ukraine when we achieve our objectives…those objectives do not change…denazification, demilitarization and its neutral status.”
– Vladimir Putin, December 2023
In response to the 2022 Russian “special military operation”, the United States swiftly imposed economic sanctions on Russia, targeting its major economic sectors and key figures within the Kremlin. These actions were designed to hold Russia accountable and affirm the importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The United States’ commitment to standing by Ukraine set the stage for increasing involvement in the conflict. By the summer of 2022, the Biden administration began increasing financial aid while encouraging NATO partners to donate weapons and technology. The United States began slowly increasing and expanding the type of aid, often in the face of heightened Putin and senior Russian officials’ rhetoric.
In August of 2021, the world watched as the United States unceremoniously withdrew forces from Afghanistan. The scene was reminiscent of the US withdrawal from Vietnam nearly fifty years earlier. This time, terrified Vietnamese were replaced by desperate Afghan nationals clinging to US transport aircraft. What that scene also demonstrated was how little the administration valued the service and sacrifice of not just American troops but also those of our closest allies.
As the situation unfolds in Ukraine and the front lines move across borders, the US must adopt a multifaceted strategy combining military, economic, and diplomatic support while respecting our allies doing the same. The stakes are high, and the consequences of inaction are dire. By continuing its strong commitment to Ukraine, the United States not only safeguards democratic allies but also reinforces the principles of international order, stability, and peace in an increasingly fragmented world. The war in Ukraine has seen NATO rise to the challenge, supporting Ukraine’s desperate and seemingly unwinnable war against the vaunted Russian bear. This is exactly the time to show our resolve to Ukraine and our NATO partners.
Though coverage of the ongoing war in Ukraine has taken a backseat in the post-election news cycle, that should change soon. The Trump administration has the unenviable mandate, some would say, to make good on campaign promises of ending the war while holding Russia accountable. With both political parties previously using the war to justify their positions and ambitions, it remains to be seen how this administration will support Ukraine.
The war, which essentially began following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and intensified with the full-scale invasion in February 2022, signaled a pivotal moment for NATO and its role in modern Europe. Not so surprisingly, the United States emerged as a key player, shifting from diplomatic support to being a major weapons and technology supplier while ignoring Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats. NATO’s commitment to Ukraine and the United States’ intervention as a member of NATO remains vital for Ukraine’s sovereignty and essential for regional stability.
History, and more precisely, Russian history and Putin’s obsession with rebuilding a Russian empire, are central to NATO’s required intervention. The history between Ukraine and Russia is ripe with examples of an insecure and overconfident bully attempting to coerce a perceived weaker but strategically important neighbor. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine sought to assert its independence and carve out its own identity – which included not just separation from Russian influence but an emergence as a near-peer. However, Russia has not accepted that; more precisely, Vladimir Putin has refused to respect Ukraine’s ability to self-govern. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 marked a stark violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and prompted widespread condemnation from the global community, but with little action to follow – it emboldened Putin.
“There will be peace in Ukraine when we achieve our objectives…those objectives do not change…denazification, demilitarization and its neutral status.”
– Vladimir Putin, December 2023
In response to the 2022 Russian “special military operation”, the United States swiftly imposed economic sanctions on Russia, targeting its major economic sectors and key figures within the Kremlin. These actions were designed to hold Russia accountable and affirm the importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The United States’ commitment to standing by Ukraine set the stage for increasing involvement in the conflict. By the summer of 2022, the Biden administration began increasing financial aid while encouraging NATO partners to donate weapons and technology. The United States began slowly increasing and expanding the type of aid, often in the face of heightened Putin and senior Russian officials’ rhetoric.
As recently as this week, Putin challenged the legitimacy of Ukraine’s president. Putin claimed that Zelensky’s term expired in May of 2024, essentially making him unable to negotiate a ceasefire or treaty. This adds to the irony of the Russian president himself, having manipulated the Russian constitution multiple times to keep himself in the Kremlin. His last constitutional change allows him to remain in power until at least 2036.
Zelenskyy speaking to reporters during a recent press conference. (Image grabbed via X)
If Putin can manage to survive external and internal threats, he will become the longest-serving leader since Catherine ‘the Great’, who ruled over Russia from 1762 to 1796. In close second place is the creator of the ‘Great Purge’ himself, Joseph Stalin. Stalin ruled from 1924 to 1953 while purging more than one million Russians through summary execution and ethnic cleansing. This puts the seventy-two-year-old Putin well into his eighties. Joseph Stalin, whose twenty-nine-year reign of terror only ended due to his declining health and eventually death in office.
Regardless of Putin’s threats, the Biden administration began providing critical non-lethal military aid to Ukraine, including medical supplies and protective armor, in early 2022. This foundational support was pivotal, enabling Ukraine to fortify its defensive positions and resist being completely overrun by Russian forces. The imposition of sanctions and provision of non-lethal assistance demonstrated the United States’ dedication to supporting Ukrainian sovereignty amid growing risks. With this came the growing requests from Ukraine’s President Zelensky for radar systems, long-range artillery, armored vehicles, and advanced strike fighter aircraft like the F-16.
As the conflict evolved and the stakes escalated, the U.S. response intensified. The Biden administration transitioned toward providing more lethal assistance, such as anti-tank weapons and radar systems. This shift was critical in enhancing Ukraine’s military capabilities and preventing further Russian incursions. Again, this pulled our NATO allies closer to a potential direct conflict with Russia, as the NATO countries Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Poland increased their contributions dramatically. What is even more impressive was the April 2022 formation of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, with the meeting including 41 countries, while the greater coalition grew to include 54 countries by the winter of 2023.
By March 2024, Russia’s worst nightmare continued as NATO expanded again, adding Finland and Sweden. Finland and Sweden joined NATO under intense scrutiny and defined threats from the Kremlin and Putin himself. Still, these threats were now less believable as NATO and other NATO-supporting allies surrounded Russia. Simultaneously, military, humanitarian, and financial support flowed from as far as Argentina and Turkey into Ukraine.
The implications of US intervention extend beyond Ukraine. For Ukraine, the US support has been a lifeline, enabling it to mount resilient defenses against multiple Russian offensive campaigns. Providing advanced military equipment and financial resources has empowered Ukraine to reclaim territories and sustain its fight for autonomy. Globally, U.S. intervention has revitalized NATO, reinforcing unity among member states and demonstrating a collective resolve to confront potential threats from Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The united front against aggression has deterred further advances and revitalized transatlantic relationships, showcasing an imperative for collaboration in the face of rising authoritarianism.
“We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted.”
– Ronald Reagan, July 1980
However, the potential for escalation remains an ever-present risk. Critics from European and US politicians warn that increased military assistance could provoke further hostile actions from Russia, highlighting the need for a delicate approach that balances support for Ukraine with measured diplomatic engagements aimed at conflict resolution. This also reflects the importance and power of NATO. The US cannot do this alone or in a vacuum; any negotiations need to have the interests of Ukraine and our regional NATO partners and allies at the forefront.
Public opinion in the United States plays a significant role in shaping the trajectory of its involvement in Ukraine. Initially, there was strong bipartisan support for aiding Ukraine, fueled by a recognition of the threat posed by Russian aggression. However, as the conflict endures, opinions continue to splinter in the US, particularly along party lines. Leadership needs to maintain public engagement and dialogue about the necessity and value of continued involvement, reminding us of the broader principles at stake—democracy, sovereignty, human rights, and maintaining the trust and confidence of our allies.
The United States’ intervention in the war in Ukraine and continued support and loyalty to our NATO partners are crucial elements in the struggle for democracy and freedom in the face of authoritarianism. From the imposition of sanctions to military assistance and humanitarian initiatives, the United States cannot again lose its credibility by abandoning our alliances or our allies. We cannot afford another Kabul moment.
