By John Q. Hosedrinker 
While acknowledging current battlefield setbacks, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte asserts that Ukraine is not losing the war, citing the heavy Russian casualties—estimated at 1,000-1,500 daily—as evidence of unsustainable Russian gains. He emphasizes the West’s crucial role in preventing Russia from achieving its objectives and ensuring Ukraine’s eventual strong position. Rutte cautions against premature peace negotiations with Russia, highlighting the Bucha atrocities as a testament to Putin’s brutality and the need for lasting security guarantees for Ukraine. Continued Western support, he argues, is vital to achieving this.
Read the original article here
Ukraine will not lose this war; that much is clear. The stakes are incredibly high, not just for Ukraine, but for the entire European continent and indeed, global stability. Allowing an aggressive war of conquest to succeed would set a terrifying precedent, one that could unravel decades of hard-won peace and security. The consequences of such a failure would be catastrophic, a tragedy on a scale not seen since the horrors of the Holocaust.
We must understand the urgency of the situation. This isn’t simply about defending Ukraine’s borders; it’s about defending the very principles of sovereignty and international law. Conquest and expansion by force cannot be tolerated, and a clear message must be sent that such actions will meet with resolute opposition. The failure to act decisively would embolden aggressors and create a world where might makes right.
Therefore, supporting Ukraine isn’t just a moral imperative; it’s a strategic necessity. We need to bolster Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, to become stronger, better equipped, and more resilient. This requires a significant and sustained commitment of resources, not just in the short term but as a long-term investment in regional stability. The scale of this commitment must match the scale of the threat. This isn’t about charity; it’s about self-preservation.
There’s a significant concern that Europe’s current military posture is insufficient. A heavy reliance on external military support is not a sustainable approach to national security. There’s a need for European nations to invest more heavily in their own defense industries, reducing dependence on external suppliers and building their capacity to respond effectively to threats. A concerted effort towards self-reliance in defense capabilities is not merely prudent; it’s crucial for the long-term security of the continent. This includes committing to long-term contracts for the production of essential military supplies like artillery shells, ensuring a stable and reliable supply chain.
Concerns about the potential for political instability and shifts in global leadership are also relevant. The possibility of certain nations pulling back from their global commitments necessitates a reassessment of European security strategies. While maintaining strong alliances is critical, European nations must develop the capacity to defend themselves, even in the face of potential changes in global power dynamics. This requires strengthening military capabilities and fostering greater strategic autonomy.
The long-term implications of this conflict extend beyond immediate military concerns. The economic costs of this war are staggering, and the need for sustained commitment to Ukraine’s reconstruction will likely be immense. The ongoing conflict underscores the importance of diversification in energy supplies and the need to reduce reliance on potentially unreliable sources. The current crisis should serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of international relations and the importance of investing in proactive security measures.
Some have argued that the best course of action would be to negotiate with the aggressor, but that would effectively reward aggression and embolden future acts of violence. The cost of appeasement is far greater than the cost of resolute resistance. The international community has a responsibility to prevent further atrocities and ensure that the principles of sovereignty and self-determination are upheld. This requires a clear and unified stance against any attempts to subvert the international order.
While some might point to historical examples of surrender and subsequent recovery, the analogy is fundamentally flawed. Comparing the situation in Ukraine to historical events without considering the unique context is misleading and deeply insensitive. The notion that Ukrainians would be “better off” under Russian rule disregards the historical and ongoing persecution of Ukrainians under Russian occupation. This is not a matter of simple conquest and eventual integration; this is a war of aggression aimed at the annihilation of a nation and its culture.
In conclusion, aiding Ukraine is not merely a humanitarian gesture; it’s a critical investment in the future security of Europe and the international order. We must stand firmly against aggression, provide Ukraine with the necessary support to defend itself and emerge stronger, and simultaneously focus on enhancing our own defense capabilities and strategic autonomy. Failure to do so would be a colossal mistake with far-reaching and devastating consequences.