By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Biden administration’s authorization of long-range ATACMS strikes inside Russia represents a significant policy shift, potentially bolstering Ukraine’s defense against a large Russian-North Korean force. This action, likely influenced by the upcoming Trump presidency, allows Ukraine to target key Russian infrastructure, such as command centers and logistics, thereby weakening their offensive capabilities. Retired General Ben Hodges emphasizes that while not a “game changer” in itself, the ATACMS authorization is a positive step, although its restricted use remains a concern. However, the long-term impact remains uncertain given President-elect Trump’s stated intentions to quickly end the war, raising concerns about future U.S. support for Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Russia only wins if the West quits. This isn’t just a catchy phrase; it’s a stark reality reflecting the potential consequences of appeasement in the face of unprovoked aggression. History shows us that appeasing aggressive imperialists rarely works, and the consequences of failing to decisively counter Putin’s actions in Ukraine could be catastrophic.
A Russian victory would embolden other dictators worldwide, potentially triggering a cascade of conflicts. Imagine a world where such actions are rewarded rather than condemned – a world where aggression becomes the new norm, paving the way for further conflicts across the globe. Moldova, Georgia, the Baltics, and many others could become targets.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons also represents a significant risk. A successful Russian subjugation of Ukraine, a nation that voluntarily relinquished its nuclear arsenal under security guarantees, would send a chilling message about the reliability of such agreements. This would destabilize the global security architecture and could lead to a dangerous arms race.
The geopolitical consequences of a Russian win would be devastating for the West. It’s not simply about Ukraine; it’s about the future of international relations and the very principle of upholding international law. To abandon Ukraine now would be to invite further acts of aggression and to surrender to the idea that might makes right.
Some argue against continued support for Ukraine, either through a lack of understanding of global power dynamics or a desire to live in a more autocratic world. However, this is a short-sighted perspective. The cost of inaction – allowing Putin to win – far outweighs the cost of sustained support for Ukraine.
The argument for consistent support isn’t just about the future of Ukraine; it’s also about the credibility and reliability of Western alliances. Failure to stand firm now would undermine trust amongst allies, potentially leaving each vulnerable to future aggression. This erosion of trust and commitment weakens the collective defense against threats.
The notion that a Russian victory is somehow inevitable is a dangerous fallacy. Putin’s decision to invade, despite ample opportunity for diplomatic solutions, demonstrates a clear disregard for international norms. The notion of a peaceful resolution under Russian dominance is unrealistic, as evidenced by Putin’s ongoing aggression. He has not demonstrated a desire for peace on his terms, only on terms of complete subjugation. Any attempt at appeasement merely provides breathing room for further aggression.
Concerns about the reliability of Western support, especially from the United States, are valid but shouldn’t overshadow the urgent need to counter Russian aggression. A wavering approach will only encourage more aggressive behavior. America’s shifts in foreign policy are a legitimate concern but should not be a reason to abandon the fight entirely. It simply underscores the importance of unified and consistent action across allied nations.
The alternative to steadfast support is far more perilous. A precedent of successful wars of conquest would embolden not only Russia but every other aspiring imperialist regime. It would create a world governed by brute force and the threat of violence, where international law is meaningless, and where smaller nations are at constant risk of invasion.
Therefore, the assertion that “Russia only wins if the West quits” holds true. Quitting would not merely result in a loss in Ukraine, but a catastrophic failure to defend the global order. A failure to stand resolute now would embolden further aggression, increase the risks of nuclear proliferation, and ultimately lead to a far more dangerous and unstable world. Persistence and unwavering support for Ukraine are the only paths to avoiding such a future.