The stakes in Ukraine’s war against Russia go far beyond the borders of a single nation. For the United States and Europe, Ukraine’s victory is not only essential for the country’s survival but for the preservation of global security, democracy, and peace. The lessons of history, especially those learned from World War II, underline the necessity of acting decisively now, rather than delaying intervention as we did before.
“We are making refrigerators while our enemies are making bombs.” This statement was made by FDR during a speech in 1940, highlighting the contrast between American consumer production and the military buildup by adversaries. Despite some differences, that quote still holds some relevance today.
When Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939, many argued that the United States and its allies should have intervened sooner. Delays allowed Adolf Hitler to strengthen his grip on Europe, eventually leading to absolute devastation with far reaching consequences. Had the U.S. acted when Poland was first attacked, it’s possible the war might not have escalated into a global catastrophe. As Winston Churchill famously stated, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
We see a chilling parallel in today’s conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine bears a striking resemblance to Hitler’s expansionist ambitions at the time. If the West stands by, allowing Russia to annex Ukraine (as its already done in part), it risks emboldening Putin to press further into Europe at some point in the relatively near future. Putin has openly challenged NATO and the West, and his territorial and imperialistic ambitions are clear. Should he succeed in Ukraine, NATO member countries like the Baltic states and Poland could be next. Like Hitler’s aggression before World War II, A conquest in Ukraine, if allowed, may be a prelude to further invasions. We’ve seen this before throughout history, which is why NATO nations in the east take this matter so seriously.
Some argue that Russia is not powerful enough to invade NATO countries, but it is crucial to understand the potential consequences of Russia’s absorption of its neighboring nation with vast resources. If Putin succeeds, Moscow would not only gain access to the Ukrainian military but also to the vast quantities of advanced Western weaponry sent to Ukraine to defend itself. This would drastically enhance Russia’s military capabilities. That said, Russia’s success in Ukraine could act as a domino effect, making it more formidable with each conquest as it absorbs more resources, strategic territories, and trained military personnel forced to fight on Putin’s behalf.
In that scenario, Russia would then be emboldened to press westward into NATO territory, increasing the chances of World War III, not the other way around as some of Putin’s sympathizers might suggest. Russia’s President has repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for international norms and agreements, and his aggression would likely escalate after a rampant victory not just in Ukraine, but other nearby nations as well. If Europe and the U.S. allow this scenario to unfold, they could face a much larger and more devastating war in our or our children’s future.
History has shown that negotiating with Russia often leads to increased aggression. Much like a schoolyard bully, Russia has continually pushed the limits of what it can get away with, whether through its invasion of Crimea in 2014 or its interventions in Syria and Georgia. Even the spreading of propaganda in the west has resulted in such rewards. Each time, the West’s tepid response only emboldened Moscow, leaving it amused while many in the west struggle to distinguish between fact and fiction. Negotiating with Putin under those circumstances, especially if Ukraine were forced to lose territory in the process, would only solidify his belief that the West lacks the resolve to challenge him. Like a bully, Russia will only back down when faced with firm resistance. NATO’s collective response must demonstrate unequivocally that Russia’s aggressive behavior will not be tolerated now or in the foreseeable future.
U.S. and European officials have echoed these sentiments. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken remarked, “Putin’s aggression against Ukraine has demonstrated a real and urgent threat to international peace and security.” European Union leaders, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, have stated that standing up to Russia is not only necessary for Ukraine’s survival but for the security of Europe as a whole. This is why much of Europe is suddenly in unison with regard to lifting the restrictions that currently prevent Ukraine from using western weapons directly against their invader’s own country.
While some fear that standing up to Russia could escalate into nuclear war, experts argue that such a scenario remains unlikely. Despite Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling, the use of nuclear weapons would bring catastrophic consequences for Russia itself. NATO has a strong nuclear deterrent, and any use of nuclear weapons by Russia would trigger a massive and devastating retaliation. Analysts point out that even Putin, despite his authoritarian tendencies, understands the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD). The economic and political fallout for Russia would be unbearable, not to mention the human cost and loss of valuable infrastructure. Russian officials know that a nuclear war would mean the collapse of their regime, and possibly Russia itself, making it an unattractive option.
The U.S. and its NATO allies maintain the capability to retaliate in kind, and the costs of nuclear escalation far outweigh any perceived benefits for Russia. Moreover, internal pressures from Russia’s elite and military apparatus, who are keenly aware of the global consequences, further diminish the likelihood of nuclear engagement, despite leading the world to believe otherwise.
The most prudent course of action for the West is to ensure Ukraine’s best interests in this conflict. A defeat would not only devastate the country even further, but severely weaken NATO’s credibility, embolden Russia, and open the door to further aggression in Europe. If the West were to just turn a blind eye, it could face a far more dangerous and costly war later on. As the situation stands, helping Ukraine now is not just a matter of moral responsibility but also one of strategic necessity for the U.S. and Europe as a whole.
Additionally, NATO’s principle of collective defense—Article 5—means that if Putin were to push into NATO countries like Poland or the Baltics, the entire alliance would be obligated to respond. A conflict involving NATO would be much more complex, costly, and destructive than the current war in Ukraine. This is why much of Putin’s propaganda is set on destabilizing the NATO alliance by whatever means necessary. And yes, this includes bribing or otherwise influencing vulnerable western officials, especially during an upcoming election.
The defeat of Russia would also send a strong message to authoritarian regimes around the world that aggressive expansionism will not be tolerated, which has even triggered China to act more aggressively as of late. Helping Ukraine would not only help secure its sovereignty, but it would also help stabilize Europe and reaffirm the strength of its alliances. NATO, with the US as its cornerstone, must lead in ensuring that this is the only acceptable outcome, otherwise, the cost of inaction can result in far greater consequences not too far down the road.
President Joe Biden has said, “This is about the future of global peace and security. If we allow aggression to succeed, it sends a message to the world’s dictators that they can act with impunity.” European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, have echoed similar views, warning that Russian success could destabilize the continent and weaken NATO’s ability to maintain peace, and possibly even destabilize NATO as an alliance in the process.
The West cannot afford to sit back and allow Russia carry on as if it’s not its problem. The consequences of doing so would ripple through Europe, emboldening Russia and potentially leading to further invasions, potentially to include NATO territory. History reminds us of the cost of inaction, and it is clear that, like Hitler, Putin will not stop with one conquest. If NATO stands firm now, it can prevent a much larger, calamitous outcome later on. Ukraine’s victory is not just about protecting one nation—it’s about securing peace, stability, and democracy for Europe and potentially the entire world as we know it.
