The Ukrainian drone attack on Russian airbases last week demonstrates how the war's outcome can reinforce a rules-based order and reassert US strategic leadership. Ukraine’s drone attacks changed warfare for the foreseeable future by redefining deterrence and offense. This isn’t idealism. It is national interest itself. Support for Ukraine has yielded strategic returns. Without a single American boot on the ground, US assistance has degraded Russian conventional power and deflated its image. The cost? 7% of the annual U.S. defense budget. That’s a calculated investment with a clear payoff. Ukraine is not just defending its borders—it is defending the very notion of territorial integrity.
In global affairs, perception can be more dangerous than reality, especially when the stakes involve war, deterrence, and the balance of power. President Donald Trump’s remarks about the Russian war in Ukraine as “senseless,” and “madness” went viral across social media platforms. True enough, the number and level of cruelty of war crimes the Russian army commits are beyond comprehension.
This war is not a random shuffle of tragic events. It is a litmus test for twenty-first-century deterrence—a high-stakes hand in the long-running, multidimensional game of geopolitical poker, where decisionmaking unfolds under conditions of incomplete information.
Even professional players lack full knowledge of the game’s structure or other players’ payoffs, creating uncertainty and forcing strategic choices based on belief systems and probabilities. At the poker table, calling a situation “senseless” often means losing track of the knowns—and losing a strategic edge. The audacious brilliance of the Ukrainian drone attack on Russian airbases last week demonstrates that Ukraine can and should win the war.
If Ukraine plays this hand right, the outcome can reinforce a rules-based order and reassert American strategic leadership. Ukraine’s daring drone attacks changed twenty-first-century warfare for the foreseeable future by redefining both deterrence and offensive operations. However, if the United States folds too early, the table—and the entire game—may never look the same again. Public discourse in the United States continues to reduce the conflict to a regional land dispute—a tug-of-war over territory. It’s a simplification that leads many to think Ukraine can just “give up some land” to stop the bloodshed. That logic ignores reality. You don’t stop a house fire by handing over a few rooms to the arsonist.
While the Kremlin continues its ludicrous “special military operation” against Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, the facts are clear. This is not a domestic or regional conflict. It has already gone global. The actors involved—Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—aren’t just united by authoritarian ideology; they’re united by strategy and despise the cost of life.
Chinese mercenaries “study” the art of war in Kursk, Iranian Shahed drones rain death upon Ukrainian civilians day and night, and North Koreans deliver shells and ballistic missiles to target Ukrainian cities. Together, they form a dangerous bloc of “CRINK” alliance with a shared interest in undermining US and European strength, free markets, and democratic norms. It appears that we need to rename this war, as it has already transcended the Russo-Ukrainian narrative into a multiplayer, global survival game. Call it what it is: the central conflict of our time. It is the test of the free world’s resolve that will define whether peace is achieved through strength.
Not a Sideshow, but the Main Table
Ukraine is not just defending its borders—it is defending the very notion of territorial integrity. If Russia, a nuclear-armed state, is allowed to steamroll a non-nuclear neighbor without consequences, the message to the world is clear: One can no longer rely on treaties—only arsenals. The global nonproliferation regime—something conservatives have protected for generations—would consequently unravel as states seek security through a nuclear deterrent.
This isn’t a matter of idealism. It is the national interest itself—pure and simple. Support for Ukraine has yielded strategic returns that even the most seasoned realists can’t ignore. Without a single American boot on the ground, US assistance has degraded Russian conventional power and deflated its image as a formidable peer competitor. The cost? Roughly 7 percent of the annual U.S. defense budget. That’s not a gamble—it’s a calculated investment with a clear payoff. Now is the time to add cards to make it a full house for a decisive Ukrainian victory.
Diplomacy for Victory, not Appeasement
Some propose a “negotiated settlement,” a ceasefire through compromise. But negotiations only work when both players honor the rules. Russia, by weaponizing energy, food, and even children, has shown it’s not playing chess. It is flipping the board. Alternately, anyone can now clearly see that Ukrainians won’t give up.
Professional foreign policy thinkers know that prudence in moments of crisis is not about emotion. It’s about discernment: Understanding the stakes, reading the board, knowing when to raise and when to call. The war in Ukraine, in this respect, is not a senseless spasm of violence.
It makes terrifying sense—if we dare to look clearly at the world it is shaping. It is time to play it right. That is how to transform a brutal war into a victory that leads to sustainable peace, one where all live in safety, where aggressors and perpetrators think twice, a future that’s not zero-sum but hard-won, rules-based, well-defended, and, most importantly, free.
0 comments:
Post a Comment