I’m most likely preaching to the choir writing this here on Daily Kos, but Ukraine should be recognized by more people as a senior member in the alliance against Russia. To be clear, I’m not talking about admission into NATO (though I support that once appropriate). I’m talking about Ukraine and the ad hoc group of nations sending support to it in Ukraine’s fight against Russia.
In the media, and even here on Daily Kos (and probably even in my own writing, though I can’t find a quick example) there is a frequent portrayal of Ukraine as a supplicant for aid from Europe and the US. Sometimes more blatant than others, and not entirely without reason, Ukraine is portrayed as junior, less experienced, less advanced, and otherwise constantly looking up for support. And to acknowledge the obvious straightaway, it does receive immense donations of Western gear (frequently outdated) and significant financial assistance to keep its government afloat. This support has been critical to the progress of the war and I don’t think anyone doubts the war would have gone much more poorly for Ukraine if it hadn’t received such aid. For just one example, Ukraine ran through most of its own 152mm artillery ammo in the first few months of the war. I really don’t care to examine the plight they would be in had the alliance of countries not stepped in with copious amounts of 155mm guns and ammo amongst all the other gear. So I don’t want anyone to think I am arguing that Ukraine could have done this all alone and the support hasn’t helped.
But I am going to argue that Ukraine brings far more to this alliance than it is frequently given credit for. Thankfully what I am going to share has mostly been stated many times here in the comments section of Daily Kos. So think of me not so much as writing original content here, but simply editing many thoughts from our community together into a single article.
The first and most obvious contribution, which thankfully does get mentioned frequently, is the cost in lives and well being of its brave soldiers and citizens fighting against Russia. It is Ukraine, and a relatively small number of foreign volunteers, who daily live with Russian attacks on their homes, cities, and country. Their blood is being spilt by the Russians in Ukraine, and no others in the alliance. There are of course people in parts of Africa and Asia who are also being attacked by Russia. But the biggest most effective fight being waged against Russia is in Ukraine. That we support Ukraine far more than these other countries is certainly worth examining and certainly due to some level of racism, but that I will leave for another article as its far more complex and difficult to untangle. But I did want to acknowledge their sacrifice as well.
But however noble the sacrifice of Ukrainian lives are, it frequently only elevates them to the level of unfortunate victim rather than a senior partner in fight against oppression. And this is a pernicious labeling, as when labeled as victims they are portrayed separately from the rest of us. Our countries weren’t invaded. We weren’t so weak so as to draw the attention of the local bully. It makes the attack on Ukraine as something apart, instead of what it is which is an attack on democracy, rule of law, and the respect for the lives of others. While not directly suffering now, everyone in the world would eventually be on the list of people to subjugated by Russia if Russia is not stopped. Even if you may disagree with me, I have a feeling I would get the agreement of most people living in Poland and the Baltics. If Russia had its way, we would all eventually be physical victims of its malice. The Ukrainians were not the first, but hopefully the whole alliance can make them be the last (and hopefully help break Russia’s attacks and influence in other parts of Asia and Africa).
But bearing the cost in lives is not the only contribution Ukraine makes. Ukraine should now be, if not the top expert, amongst the top experts in modern, near-peer, full scale war. Yes, at this point I would certainly give them more practical knowledge than NATO. If you consider Iraq a near peer war for the US, that was 20 years ago. The infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln was May 1, 2003. To put this in perspective, any of the 18 year old US army recruits joining the army today weren’t even born then. And due to the US military’s “up or out” policy, relatively few officers now serving today had experience in that war. Everything since then has been (for US forces) counter insurgency campaigns. And its a stretch to consider the 2003 Iraq War a near-peer war considering how lop-sided the air supremacy was and the mismatch in gear. Newsweek has their own take on this.
The war in Ukraine is unique in history. While constant parallels are drawn to past conflicts, no other war in history has had this level of observation from drones, cell phones, and satellites. Both the participants and the general public have unprecedented levels of knowledge regarding troop movements. The near ubiquity of drone observation has removed a great deal of fog of war for the two armies. While much of the fog of war remains for those of us observing from a distance, the parties with access to guided munitions are able to see real time enemy movement kilometers behind the lines. That level of omnipresence has only been historically achieved in relatively modern conflicts with one side obtaining air superiority such as the Iraq war.
While the US military has practice waging one-sided wars, it does not have experience in the current environment of an enemy who maintains offensive strike capabilities behind the lines using drones without having obtained even local air superiority. It most certainly has the capability to wage a drone war, having essentially pioneered the practice with predator drones and the like, but they have not gone up against a large enemy with copious amounts of disposable observation drones and suicide drones. And frankly, it’s pretty clear the Ukrainian FPV drones are more cost effective than some of the hyped US loitering drones from the start of the conflict.
Unfortunately for the world, land mines are likely to have a resurgence after this summers stymied Ukrainian offensive. The US and NATO clearly don’t have what it takes to deal with the depth and breadth of minefields laid out by the Russians. When Ukrainians went for training with NATO forces regarding demining, the Ukrainians were told by the trainers to go around any minefield that was too dense or too deep. Clearly, those trainers haven’t faced what Ukraine is facing. And don’t doubt US enemies are taking notice. The next big conflict the US is in will most certainly have an enemy with large minefields patrolled by suicide drones.
I think its notable we see so little of the Gepard tank but that many were recently purchased back from Jordan at a much inflated price. With the recent purchase they are clearly very important to Ukraine and with the lack of Russian observation of them they clearly being held back for the defense of high value assets. If they are being used at the front lines, they are not being successfully observed or engaged. I can’t imagine Russia not plastering the interwebs with pictures of a destroyed Gepard. This is noteworthy because anti-aircraft guns mounted on a vehicle are very much a World War 2 thing. Even the missile based Bradly “linebacker” vehicle was a short lived experiment and being missile based would not be as cost effective as the Gepard. NATO has somewhat neglected SHORAD (short range air defense) instead looking to its air force to provide air defense. But jets and missiles are way overpriced to take on $1000 FPV drones. Ukraine is lucky Germany still had some Gepards left. NATO didn’t see their true value.
And as for tactics, I would not be surprised to find out when this is all done and over with that Ukraine was pressured by NATO to attack in the manner that they did at the start of the 2023 summer campaign. And I’m not sure how much value any NATO advice will have going forward. If NATO isn’t going to provide the Air Force to assure NATO doctrine levels of air cover, then frankly the NATO militaries strategies will have limited value in certain areas.
Ukraine has much to teach the US and NATO about the current state of warfare. And NATO doesn’t have as much to teach the Ukrainians anymore. NATO is still critically important to Ukraine for all the different supports they give Ukraine. But I think it’s important to change the narrative regarding that aid. We need to stop seeing Ukraine as a junior partner which brings nothing to the table. Instead we need to start seeing them more like the United Kingdom in 1940, and preferably more like the UK in 1942. So long as Ukraine is written off as a minor power whose fate relies solely on our generosity, they are further handicapped. If we wish to truly succeed versus Russia, we need to better acknowledge Ukraine’s contributions and importance to the greater war. We need to stop just handing off old equipment to a charity. We need to see them as critical and irreplaceable to stopping Russia.
And this is particularly important in the light of growing Republican resistance to aid. We can’t scale back to appease the Republicans. We need to better convey to the general public just how important this fight is. And part of that is the attitude and manner in which we think of Ukraine and portray them. We will lose the US political fight if it’s made to be about helping some poor country fend off a troublesome neighbor. In order to win our political fight we need it to be portrayed as coming to the defense of an irreplaceable Ally in the war against authoritarianism. Ukraine needs to be seen not as some unjustifiable expense item on a spreadsheet, but as the thriving and promising democracy they are who are doing more than their fair share in OUR fight with Russia. Because it is OUR fight, NATO and Ukraine together against Russia. Portraying it as anything less is both disingenuous and dangerous to its success.
