<< Dallas TX, NOV 28 2023 >> US Victory over Russia via Military Support of Ukraine Introduction The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which began in 2014, is a complex and enduring crisis with deep-seated roots. Its origins can be traced back to the removal of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych by pro-European Ukrainians who sought closer ties with the West. This pivotal moment marked the beginning of a struggle for influence and control in the region, pitting Western-leaning Ukrainians against the Kremlin's interests. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, strongly opposed these developments, interpreting them as a direct challenge to Russia's sphere of influence. The conflict can be seen as an expression of modern Pan-Slavism, with Putin positioning himself as a leader of the Slavic world (Đorđević, et al., 2022, 3-13). However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, most Slavic nations have increasingly looked to the West as a model of governance and prosperity , creating a fundamental divergence between Russia's objectives and the aspirations of its Slavic neighbors. This fundamental divergence between Russia and the West has given rise to significant friction between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Russian Federation(Đorđević, et al.,, 2022, 3-13). Vladimir Putin, known for his tactical approach to geopolitics,employed a familiar playbook in response. His first significant move occurred in 2008 with the Russianinvasion of Georgia, where he invoked the protection of Russian-aligned ethnic groups with Russianpassports as justification. This tactical gamble successfully thwarted Georgia's aspirations to joinNATO, serving as a significant geopolitical victory for Putin. Building on the success of this strategy, Putin continued to employ a similar approach. In 2014, he used the pretext of protecting Russian-speaking and Russian-aligned communities to justify the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas regions. These actions marked the start of a protracted and unresolved conflict in Ukraine. Subsequently, from 2014 to 2022, the conflict expanded further with the invasion of the remainder of Ukraine. Putin's overarching objective has been to overthrow the Ukrainian government and replace it with a pro-Russian administration, thereby preventing Ukraine from pursuing NATO membership (Mcfaul, Person, 2022, 28). This article will argue that the United States should refrain from actively pushing Ukraine in to a negotiated peace settlement. Why should the United States refrain from a coerced settlement? One fundamental reason is the requirement that a peace agreement must be viable, verfiable, and enforcable. These conditions dont currently exist. Additionally, the United States currently has a unique opportunity to weaken the Russian military without incurring NATO casualties. This is reminiscent of the period following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989 (The Soviet Invasion, N.D). Such a strategic move can enhance the security of NATO's Eastern flank for an extended period, possibly a decade, ultimately serving the alliance's interests.Also, the weakening the Russian military raises the possibility of a significant transformation, akin to the events of 1917, which may lead to regime change.This potential outcome may warrant careful consideration and further evaluation. Furthermore, questions arise about whether the United States can trust Russia to uphold its promises within the context of a peace settlement. Uncertainty surrounds the conditions to which both sides arewilling to make concessions, complicating the negotiation process. Finally, the principle of allowing Ukraine to reclaim land that was illegally taken from them through deception and military is just. The ongoing war in Ukraine represents a tactical gamble for Russia and the Putin Regime, and Putin has chosen to double down on the invasion(Jones, et al., 2022). For Putin, coming to the negotiating table and pursuing peace could be seen as an admission of error to the Russian world. This a significant problem since he initially expected the 2022 Ukraine invasion to be swift and successful. However, the reality is that the conflict has turned into a stalemate, with the Ukrainian forces demonstrating initiative by launching counterattacks and reclaiming some territory. While the Ukrainians may not have fully recovered all the land taken, they are gradually making territorial gains. Their military is strengthening, receiving Western equipment and ammunition, while the Russian military is resorting to outdated Soviet T-55/T62 tanks and other antiquated equipment. Russia's efforts to source ammunition from countries like North Korea and drones from Iran indicate its struggle to maintain its military capabilities in the face of severe attrition. Over time, the Ukrainian military will likely grow more robust, eventually acquiring NATO F-16 aircraft, which would tip the balance of the contested air war in their favor (U.S. Will Train, August 24). Given these developments, the Ukrainians may have little incentive to rush to the negotiating table with the Russians. They currently hold the initiative in the conflict, and this advantage may become more pronounced over time. This will also help the transition of Ukraine in to NATO,because they will have primarily Western equipment. The United States finds itself in a unique opportunity to significantly weaken the Russian military without putting American or NATO troops at risk. Since the end of World War II, the United States' primary adversaries were the Soviet Union, with their objective being the global spread of communism and the undermining of capitalist democracies (Cold War Diplomacy, n.d). The fall of the Soviet Union marked the beginning of a new Cold War, fueled by Russia's aggressive actions and imperialistic rhetoric under Putin's leadership. The ongoing invasion of Ukraine is turning into a prolonged and challenging conflict, with substantial casualties. The extent of these casualties is significant, as the Russian military has ceased counting them, possibly indicating an intention to conceal the true toll (even internally). This presents an opportunity for the United States to potentially hasten the downfall of the Putin Regime by providing more military aid to the Ukrainian forces. Historically, the Russian military has demonstrated a high tolerance for casualties. However, even the Russian army has its breaking point. The breaking point can be seen in events like the communist revolution and the mutiny of the imperial armies against the Czar. The massive WWI casualty count played a crucial role in breaking the spirit of the Russian military. This situation can be repeated, as intelligence reports suggest that some Russian units units are reluctant to fight or advance. As of the present moment, the approaching winter poses additional challenges. Colder temperatures mean soldiers need heavier clothing and increased food supplies to stay warm. The Russian military has been grappling with logistical problems, making it challenging to supply their troops adequately. This presents an opportunity for the United States to exploit these weaknesses and apply pressure othe Russian military and economy , potentially hastening the resolution of the conflict. The United States and Ukraine face significant challenges in trusting Russia and the Putin Regime, even if a peace settlement were initiated. Deception and distractions are well-practiced tactics the Russians employ, making it difficult to trust their intentions. Despite appearing well-intentioned, there remains a risk that Russia might exploit any peace initiative as an opportunity to regroup and prepare for another offensive against Ukraine (The Long-Term, 2022). The Donbas area further complicates matters, as Russian military units have violated these earlier agreements by opening fire on Ukrainian positions. This pattern of behavior erodes confidence any Russian commitment to peace. From the Ukrainian perspective, the desire to reclaim all the territories taken by Russia is strong. The land holds great significance to Ukraine and the international community, as questions of sovereignty and territorial integrity are at stake. Ukrainians aspire to regain Crimea and the Donbas region, which they consider their rightful land. Successfully reclaiming these areas would present a pivotal opportunity for Ukraine, as it could strengthen its case for NATO membership. With the land dispute effectively resolved, Ukraine would have regained its original territory before the war, bolstering its position for integration into the NATO alliance. The conflict in Ukraine has had unintended consequences for Russia and NATO. Instead of achieving its objectives, the invasion has reinvigorated NATO, which was not Putin's intention. Many NATO member countries have increased or are increasing their defense spending to 2 percent of their GDP. A crucial aspect of this response has been the stationing of more troops on NATO's eastern flank. This move is essential for enhancing deterrence in case of potential Russian aggression, particularly concerning the Baltic states. Moreover, neutral nations that had not previously considered joining NATO have now sought membership and successfully entered the alliance. For instance, Sweden and Finland, which had maintained their neutral status throughout NATO's history, have reevaluated their stance. The Russian invasion in Ukraine has demonstrated to these nations that being outside of NATO can leave them vulnerable to Russian incursions aimed at preventing their accession to the alliance and the benefits of collective security. If a pre mature peace agreement was signed, would Europe go back to its low spending ways ? This ongoing conflict causes everyone to focus. The Russian-Ukraine war has had far-reaching consequences, affecting various regions worldwide, particularly the Middle East and many African nations. These regions heavily rely on the export of fertilizer and grain, and the disruptions caused by the conflict are creating concerns of potential upheavals and food shortages. Russia and Ukraine's joint role in accounting for about one-third of the world's grain exports underscores the significance of these disruptions. YThis issue will put great pressure on Ukraine and the west to settle at any cost. Meanwhile, Middle Eastern and African countries actively explore options to diversify their grain imports to mitigate their vulnerability. This situation presents a substantial opportunity for the United States, Brazil, and other grain and fertilizer exporters. However, we should not be seen to profit by this. Ramifications of the ongoing war in Ukraine has significant global implications, and its future remains uncertain. Russia's status as a nuclear power adds a layer of complexity to the situation. Several potential scenarios and their ramifications must be considered. Suppose Ukrainian forces retake territories currently held by Russia. In that case, there is a risk that Russia's rhetoric regarding the use of nuclear weapons may become more aggressive or even turn into a reality. This could trigger a global crisis of unprecedented magnitude, with numerous countries worldwide possessing nuclear capabilities. In such a scenario, the world would look to NATO and its response, potentially leading to a catastrophic World War III. On a more positive note, if Ukraine successfully reclaims its land, it could create chaos within the Russian military and domesticallywithin Russia. This upheaval may result in dissatisfaction among the Russian people, oligarchs, and thesiloviki, potentially leading to overthrowing the Putin regime. However, the outcome of this scenario raises a crucial question: the stance of the new leader in Russia. If the new Russian leader leans toward friendlierrelations with the West, it could pave the way for improved trade and the lifting of sanctions. Conversely, if the new leadership adopts a more hostile stance, it might escalate the conflict further, potentially leading to an invasion of NATO member states. Conclusion. In conclusion, the trustworthiness of the Russian regime under Putin is a matter of significant doubt. Given this context, the United States has a vital role to play in supporting Ukraine with the necessary weaponry to reclaim its territory from Russian forces. This support not only aids Ukraine's efforts but also paves the way for its potential transition into NATO once the territories are retaken. The complexity of the conflict in Ukraine has highlighted the issue of energy security, with European nations being overly reliant on Russia, a nation seen as adversarial. This war has also had significant global economic repercussions, affecting food exports and the worldwide trade of natural resources. Interestingly, the Russian invasion has inadvertently revitalized NATO, contrary to Vladimir Putin's intentions. However, the central point must be emphasized is the strategic significance of weakening the Russian military. By doing so, NATO's eastern flank can be secured for over a decade before Russia could potentially rebuild its capabilities. If NATO countries actually implement the 2% defense spending budgets, this decade could be used to create formidable defenses. This would prevent Putin or any other Russian leader from ever contemplating an invasion again. This ever-evolving situation holds far-reaching implications, but the primary focus should be on rendering the Russian military ineffective. Such an outcome could weaken the Putin regime and potentially even lead to an eventualchange in leadership. The dynamics of this conflict are crucial, and their ramifications resonate globally. WE MUST DO WHATEVER IT TAKES FOR UKRAINIAN VICTORY. References “U.S. Relations With Russia.” 2021. U.S Department of State, September 3. www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-russia (accessed November 14, 2023). Spochr, Thomas. 2022. “ Russia’s War on Ukraine: Four Lessons From the First 100 Days.” June 6. www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/russias-war-ukraine-four-lessons-the-first-100-days(accessed November 14, 2023). Đorđević, Vladimir, Mikhail Suslov, Marek Čejka, Ondřej Mocek, and Martin Hrabálek“Revisiting Pan-Slavism in the Contemporary Perspective.” Nationalities Papers 51, no. 1 (2023): 3–13. Jenkins, Brian. 2023. “Consequences of the War in Ukraine: The End and Beyond.” March 8.www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/03/consequences-of-the-war-in-ukraine-the-end-and-beyond.html(accessed November 14, 2023). Moskowitz, Ken. 2022. “Did NATO Expansion Really Cause Putin’s Invasion?.” October.afsa.org/did-nato-expansion-really-cause-putins-invasion (accessed November 14, 2023). Clark, Joseph. 2023. “U.S. Will Train Ukrainian F-16 Pilots, Ground Crews.” August 24.www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3504621/us-will-train-ukrainian-f-16-pilots-ground-crews/(accessed November 14, 2023). Gould, Joe. 2019. “Trump to seek $250M in new lethal aid to Ukraine.” December 4. www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/04/trump-to-seek-250m-in-new-lethal-aid-to-ukraine/(accessed November 14, 2023). “The Impact of Sanctions and Export Controls on the Russian Federation.” 2022. U.S. Department of State, October 20. www.state.gov/the-impact-of-sanctions-and-export-controls-on-the-russian-federation (accessed November 14, 2023). “Conversation with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the Council on Foreign Relations.” 2023. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, September 21. www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218588.htm (accessed November 14, 2023).Gould, Joe, Sprenger Sebastian. 2023. “NATO summit defense spending pledges may exceed 2% target, Austin says.” DefenseNews(accessed November 14, 2023) “ Cold War Diplomacy.” N.D. National Museum of American Diplomacy, N.D. https://diplomacy.state.gov/discover-diplomacy/period/cold-war-diplomacy(accessed November 14, 2023). The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. Response, 1978–1980.” N.D. United States Department of State,N.D. history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/soviet-invasion-afghanistan(accessed November 14, 2023). Jones, Stephen K., Joseph S. Bermudez Jr, and Philip G. Wasielewski. 2022. “Russia's Gamble in Ukraine.”for Strategic and International Studies Kagan, Fredrick. 2022. “ THE LONG-TERM RISKS OF A PREMATURE CEASEFIRE IN UKRAINE.” December 2.www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/long-term-risks-premature-ceasefire-ukraineaccessed November 14, 2023). McFaul, Michael, Robert Person. “What Putin Fears Most. 2022. " Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development.” no. 21: 28–39.