A Case for Military Action in Ukraine

"Green" anti-energy policies may have let "General Winter" out of Russia. (Image by Le Peitit Journal, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain, due to expired copyright.)

At The Grumpy Economist, John Cochrane and Elizabeth Fama argue that "The U.S. and NATO must fight."

Their long-term rationale is compelling, and is in line with my own concerns about the precedent inaction can set:

Why are we -- the U.S., NATO, the civilized western world -- not fighting for Ukraine? If we do not fight in Ukraine now, we will fight there later, or in the Baltics, Poland, or Taiwan, at much greater cost. If we do not forcefully reverse this invasion, larger ones will follow.

There are valid concerns -- some of which Cochrane and Fama acknowledge -- that come with using military force. At the same time, the authors remind us that this needn't be an all-out invasion or lead to an endless, futile effort at "nation building:"

What can be done in practical terms? NATO can immediately declare a Russian no-fly zone over Ukraine. Denying Russia the skies would critically hamper their invasion. NATO can launch missiles, drones, and airstrikes at Russian army assets. NATO should move invasion forces to the Ukrainian borders. Allies could work closely and directly with the Ukrainian Army, and support their intelligence. The U.S. could unleash our own cyber capabilities. We should protect President Zelenskyy and his government. (The man is a hero.)

In other words, we have options, which many people pro- and con- tend to forget when the prospect of engaging in a war crops up.

Interestingly, there is a postscript, perhaps owing to surprising weaknesses -- military and political -- that Putin's gambit is exposing, and that fit in with the tenor of Richard Fernandez's analysis, which I pointed to yesterday:

Bottom line: We must not let Ukraine lose. Do what it takes, calibrate responses, sure, maybe we don't have the right strategy. Maybe big sanctions will do it. Maybe Putin will be overthrown, But letting Ukraine lose and then settling in for a sanctions negotiation is an unacceptable outcome. Do not let Ukraine lose.

War is upon us whether we want it or not. It is conceivable that sanctions are enough, but I am concerned that Europe's energy dependence on Russia -- and America's refusal to maintain her own energy independence, let alone turn provider to Europe -- could be the decisive factor if things drag on long enough.

Beyond the immediate crisis, it is clear that energy independence for the West is a vital part of both starving the Russian regime of money and removing its ability to pull the plug on Western Europe.

-- CAV