Opinion - From Odesa with love: Ukraine fights on with or without the US

Yahoo

2 days ago

The city of Odesa, once the pearl of the Black Sea and host to nearly 1,000 attendees during this year's Black Sea Forum, has regained its luster.
Aside from smatterings of plywood-covered windows and burned-out or partially destroyed buildings, one would be hard pressed to think that it was in a country under siege, fighting for its collective life. This city is enjoying, under the circumstances, a fairly normal existence.
The streets are pristine, unlike in too many American cities. Much of the architecture is Russo-French in design, dating back to the turn of the 19th to the 20th century.
But most impressive are the Ukrainians. Determined to win this war, one is reminded of the stubborn British enduring the Blitz and Hitler's relentless attacks. This seemingly boundless display of optimism extends to the taxi drivers, restaurants and hotel staff, and the non-conference-attending civilians I encountered during my time here.
The message is clear and is echoed by most of the European delegates who attended from parliaments and ministries of government, including the military, as well as the private sector, media and academia: Russia is a menace.
If not stopped in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is determined to wreck NATO and reestablish a new and greater Soviet Union-like empire. And America is unconscious or blind to this threat.
On one hand, the war in Ukraine is not atop the list of things worrying most Americans. As someone in the distant past remarked, 'it's the economy, stupid.' On the other hand, the behavior of the current president fills the media and the airwaves on a daily basis, often blocking out other news and reporting.
Yes, a growing percentage of Americans of both political parties say they support Ukraine, a statistic that is widely used here as evidence that the U.S. can and should do more. Yet, when pressed as to what that support should be in specific terms, from equipping Ukraine with the most modern weapons, to rebuilding a country largely still suffering the ravages of war, to the question of whether to send U.S. troops to the region or not, that consensus quickly dissipates.
At this writing, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and others have gained the support of some 80 of their colleagues to impose sanctions on Russia. Has that chamber suddenly grown a backbone to take on Donald Trump, who so far has dominated Congress in ways Lyndon Johnson would envy?
That said, I take the Ukrainian rationale to smash Russia now before it becomes too great a threat — and many would argue that this view has taken hold across Ukraine — with a bit of cold water. I believe we in the West are exaggerating Russia's ability to mount a broader military assault; certainly, for now and for the foreseeable future, while it rebuilds a force that has reportedly taken nearly a million casualties.
To be sure, a supermajority of Ukrainians do not accept that Putin's appetite will be satisfied if he perseveres in this war. But the fact is, the acidic warning that the only thing worse than being an enemy of the United States is being a friend or ally may apply here. Millions of Vietnamese, Afghans and Iraqis would not disagree with that observation.
Will Ukraine be next is a tragic question that must be addressed.
Many of us in the relatively small foreign and defense policy world argued that wars are often lost by getting too little too late; meaning that from Russia's February 2022 invasion (which, for too long, Trump incredibly blamed on Ukraine) the U.S. has not supplied enough weapons and sinews of war to enable the Ukrainian military to turn the tide of battle beyond halting, and in some places, reversing Russian gains.
But that is the past. What next?
Despite my dissenting analysis of Putin's military muscle, what Russia has done has to be reversed. That almost certainly will not happen. Now, Trump will decide Ukraine's fate for better, or more likely, worse.
Tragedy can be defined as a collision with reality. There was every reason to support Ukraine while some exit strategy could be developed. Now it appears the Trump exit strategy will leave it up to the two combatants — Russia and Ukraine — to end the war.
Should that be the case, we should not be surprised by the outcome. And frankly if that does happen, Americans should be ashamed.
Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.