7 Reasons Why the U.S. Military Should Not Intervene in Ukraine

Conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not new. In 1917, the Bolsheviks fought with the Ukrainians for four years in the Soviet-Ukrainian War. More recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimean region in 2014 in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. Last Wednesday, Putin took the conflict to a whole new level by launching a general invasion of Ukraine.

What escalated the conflict between these two nations? In March and April of 2021, Putin amassed troops on the Russo-Ukrainian border. Putin was using this as an opportunity to pressure Ukraine to not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as reducing NATO troops and hardware stationed in Eastern Europe. The Russian government made baseless allegations of genocide in the Donbas region, a claim that was refuted by the European Commission. The Donbas region, which had previously been in a stalemate for the past few years, had escalated fighting on February 17. 

February 21 was a significant day for the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Putin upped his rhetoric by accusing Ukraine of being a neo-Nazi nation. While there is a far-Right presence in the country, that allegation is nevertheless ironic given that both the President and Prime Minister of Ukraine are Jewish. The Russian government alleged that Ukraine was responsible for shelling a Russian border facility. That same day, Russia recognized the independence of two separatist regions in Ukraine: Donetsk and Luhansk. Finally, Russian troops entered the Donbas region.  

By the time February 24 came around, Russia had launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine, which was a blatant violation of international law. A day later, Russia fired missiles on the capital of Kiev. For all we know, Ukraine could just be the beginning for Putin. We could see an expansion of Russian power and influence that has not been exhibited since Joseph Stalin was in power. Aside from the humanitarian crisis being created, there is concern that prices in global markets are going to increase as a result. The United States government has already imposed economic sanctions on the Russian financial institutions, including cutting off Russia from the U.S. financial system.  

Imposing economic sanctions on Russia is enough for some to try to punish Russia for violating Ukraine's sovereignty. While we are less than a week into the conflict, it is already being declared the worst incidence of conventional warfare on European soil since World War II. Only U.S. military intervention will satiate those with a hawkish foreign policy. At least for now, President Biden is not looking to take that hawkish approach. As tempting as it might be to help in a humanitarian crisis and bring democracy to eastern Europe, here are seven reasons why the U.S. military should not get involved in Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is not of vital geopolitical importance for the United States. Ukraine is over 5,000 miles away from the United States on another continent. Saying that Ukraine is vital to U.S. national security is like saying Canada or Mexico is vital to Russia's national security. Even if Russia is successful in invading Ukraine, the invasion would not jeopardize the citizens of the United States, its borders, or its national prosperity. While Ukraine is not an enemy of the United States, Ukraine does not exactly stand out as a major ally of the United States. If Ukrainian sovereignty were of vital interest to the United States or other Western powers, Ukraine would have been a member of NATO by now. The United States has no treaty-based obligation to defend Ukraine (e.g., NATO Article Five). At best, the United States' geopolitical interest in Ukraine is peripheral. 
2. Ukraine will always mean more to Russia than it will to the United States. For Russia, the geopolitical argument is different. Moscow's interest in Ukraine is existential in no small part because Russia shares a 1,200-mile border with Ukraine, not to mention a shared history and similar culture. Having a large country on Russia's border become more Westernized also has symbolic meaning. It signifies that Russia continues to lose power on the global stage, both in the militaristic sense and in terms of soft power. NATO's expansion eastward does not justify Russia invading Ukraine, but I at least can understand Putin's move through the balance of power theory. Russia will continue to view Ukraine as vital to its national security. Russia is willing to put more skin into the game to neutralize Ukraine than the United States is willing to secure Ukraine. If Russian history has taught us anything, it is that the current Russian regime is willing to subject its people to a lot of suffering to advance its geopolitical status. This is a way of saying that the probability of deterring Russia from its current military actions in Ukraine is next to nil.  
3. Borders have changed as a result of conflict multiple times since WWII. One of the arguments for military intervention is that if we do not stop Russia, Russia will take over all of Europe and it will cause instability on a global level never witnessed. This is nothing more than the slippery slope fallacy in action. We had international borders change through conflict multiple times since 1945. To name a few: Kashmir; Taiwan; Israel's legally just annexation of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula as a result of a defensive war (i.e., the Six-Day War); Sino-Indian border disputes; NATO member Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and establishment of the Turkish republic of North Cyprus; the separation of Kosovo from Serbia; the Indonesian seizures of West New Guinea and East Timor; the separation of East Pakistan by India; the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia; and the Moroccan seizure of the Western Sahara. All of these changes to international borders and we have not destroyed the international system or descended into chaos. There is no plausible explanation to suggest that a hypothetical annexation of Ukraine would be so unique compared to the aforementioned border changes that it would result in an apocalyptic outcome. 
4. Russia is limited in what it can do. Let us assume that Russia is looking to expand territorially in the hopes of reliving its former glory days as Mother Russia. The only other bordering non-NATO nations aside from Ukraine are Moldova, Finland, Georgia, and Belarus. There is only so much territorial expansion that Putin could risk without triggering a full-scale war with NATO members. Even if Russia were to annex Ukraine and a few of these other states, it would most probably not be enough to threaten Western powers or become the superpower it was during the Cold War. But if Russia were to opt for fighting Western powers, its demographics do not suggest that it would prevail. Russia has a declining population, a small GDP relative to the U.S. and European powers, and its military spending cannot outmatch those of Western powers. Russia only has so many resources and it only has so many options it could take before triggering war with more powerful adversaries. 
5. U.S. military intervention could lead to nuclear war. The United States and Russia account for about 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. Both nations have nuclear triads and secondary-strike capabilities. This nuclear reality points to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD). MAD states that two countries with full-scale nuclear capabilities would cause the complete annihilation of both sides. It would be irrational, dare I say mad, to escalate a conflict to that level. MAD helps explain why the United States and former Soviet Union fought proxy wars throughout the Cold War instead of fighting head-on in conventional warfare. As much as Putin is driven by ambition, he also will be disincentivized to escalate the conflict to the point where NATO feels they need to get involved, especially to the level where nuclear weapons are used. Even so, it is not out of the realm of possibility. That possibility of MAD is what is disincentivizing President Biden from getting militarily involved in Ukraine. 
6. U.S. military intervention could lead to non-nuclear escalation. We do not need to go to the extreme of nuclear war to be worried about military escalation. First, Russia is a near-peer adversary that would have geographical advantage in the eastern European theatre and would be better positioned to dominate air, land, and sea space. The United States would need to heavily invest militarily speaking to outflank Russia. Otherwise, the United States is asking for a lot of trouble with little to no return on its military spending. The United States does not need a repeat of Vietnam or Afghanistan. Second, the United States provided $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2014, which did not de-escalate the situation. Third, as the Cato Institute brings up, there are other ways that Russia could retaliate. Supporting a guerrilla war to stage a proxy war would intensify Russia's grievance of NATO's expansion, and thereby anger Putin. Russia's escalation could go beyond eastern Europe. Russia could improve its relations with Iran and China, thereby creating more headache for the United States on an international level. Russia could meddle in other countries where there are U.S. troops, such as Syria or Iraq. Russia could even make trouble for the United States by stirring up trouble in Central or South America. There is no shortage of scenarios that could make international relations get out of control if the United States decided to intervene militarily in the Russo-Ukrainian War.  
7. The U.S. is not obligated to promote democracy. A chief obligation of the U.S. government is to protect the American people (see the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4), not to promote democracy across the world. Even if you were to argue that we need to promote democracy in Eastern Europe, the truth is that there are too many authoritarian regimes out there that would "need saving." We would need intervene in multiple countries, including Iran, Congo, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, and China. There is too much authoritarianism in the world and not enough resources to bring democracy to these authoritarian nations. You would have thought we would have learned that lesson when the U.S. military failed to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, but here we are. 

Postscript

I am not here to defend Russia's actions. Russia is in the wrong both morally and legally. Ukraine is tragically stuck in a dangerous part of Europe with a powerful, abusive neighbor on its eastern border that feels existentially threatened by the increased Westernization and democratization in Ukraine. As much as I hope that the casualties and humanitarian costs in the conflict are at a minimum, there is no rationale based on U.S. interests that would justify the U.S. military fighting in the Russo-Ukrainian War. 

I know it sounds callous to some to say this, but the hard truth is that the U.S. government only has so many resources and it needs to be able to prioritize our alliances. Since World War II, the United States has been too quick to insert itself into faraway conflicts with dubious and unclear national security interests. The United States only recently (and rightfully) got out of Afghanistan. Recent polling from YouGov and Concerned Veterans of America suggests that about a quarter of the U.S. population favors going to war, and more importantly, that 60 percent of veterans are against U.S. military intervention in Ukraine. If Ukraine's sovereignty is that vital for peace on European soil, European allies should do the heavy lifting due to their geographical proximity to Ukraine. In short, I hope that President Biden remains steadfast in militarily staying out of the conflict so we do not make a bad situation worse.