Abandoning Ukraine to the tender mercies of Russia in order to devote our military power to facing China is penny wise and pound foolish.
The Russian invasion continues with small gains in the Donbas and reduced activity overall indicating the renewed Russian offensive is approaching culmination. But Russia still stands on its conquests.
Ukraine remains reliant on Western money, weapons, and ammunition to fight back. The anticipation building for the Ukrainian counteroffensive adds to its military importance.
Will the West continue to heavily back Ukraine if the offensive fails? Especially given how much it is hyped? Arguments have been made to scale back aid to somehow engineer a so-called peace deal or to preserve our own weapons for dealing with China:
And saying supporting Ukraine "distracts" us from achieving other more important objectives has a long history as an excuse to lose a war. Once the existing war is lost, the "more important" issue fades away. Some people are perpetually looking for Mister Good War.
America doesn't really have a two-war capability despite longstanding arguments over the standard. Not from a standing start, anyway. I've addressed the issue of preparing for X number of wars.
But failing to meet that standard is no reason to abandon support for Ukraine as it fights a Russian invasion in order to add to the pivot to Asia. Supplying Ukraine and pivoting to Asia to deter China aren't even two wars.
Stopping Russia farther east actually enables America's pivot to Asia. A Russia farther east is less dangerous because it requires fewer American assets to protect. Making Russia go through more European states to rebuild its empire gives America time to prepare. And buys time for Europe to mobilize power to stop and drive the Russians back.
Seriously, if America can't supply an ally in one theater that is fighting at the same time it prepares to fight a peer threat in another theater, we have major defense budget problems.
Ukraine really needs to make the debate center on Ukrainian battlefield gains and Russian defeats rather than Western resolve to help Ukraine keep fighting.
My primary focus is on the south for Ukraine's effort to achieve those outcomes. I think the impact would be the greatest:
But the key point is not where Ukraine wins and Russia loses, but the Ukrainian victory and Russian defeat. If another front is more conducive to providing that, then that is where the counteroffensive should begin.
UPDATE (Tuesday): The latter course of action might be the only way Ukraine can gain a battlefield victory if the situation described in February reflects what it will be in May:
Ukraine’s challenges in massing troops, ammunition and equipment could cause its military to fall “well short” of Kyiv’s original goals for an anticipated counteroffensive aimed at retaking Russian-occupied areas this spring, according to U.S. intelligence assessments contained in a growing leak of classified documents revealing Washington’s misgivings about the state of the war.
I already concluded that Ukraine's military was operating closer to the edge of sufficiency given the many postponements of Ukraine's big push over the last 6 months.
And Ukraine's course of action depends on how well the Russians can resist a large-scale Ukrainian counteroffensive.
Russian troops have relinquished territory three times now. A voluntary withdrawal in the north after the drive on Kiev failed; the Ukrainian breakthrough southeast of Khakiv and pursuit to the Luhansk border; and Russia's withdrawal across the Dnieper River in the face of a cautious Ukrainian counteroffensive to liberate Kherson.
Do these operations hint that the Russians will resolutely hold the line under duress?
Does the advertised construction of extensive fortifications in Russian-occupied Crimea indicate Russia has confidence it can hold the line north of Crimea?
I don't expect Ukraine to win the war in one blow with their looming counteroffensive. But I don't expect it to falter the way that leaked intel seems to indicate. [NOTE: I edited this update to clarify my point.]
UPDATE (Friday): So far, Russia is not prepared to draft and train a lot of men. And then you have to equip them and lead them. Also problems.
NOTE: ISW coverage of the war continues here.
