Those that steadfastly claimed that the death knell for Ukraine as a sovereign nation would ring when Russian President Vladimir Putin put his shoe to Ukraine’s throat have been proved repeatedly improper.
But Ukraine remains to be fighting for its existence, its fate hangs in the balance, in a war of a rustic that can’t bear the freedom imposed on it.
And while people push some form of peace initiative from Washington to Beijing and other capitals in between, few wonder who could implement that peace.
Which country will put their shoes on the ground?
Understand that this war is just not nearly Ukraine – it never was.
The vision of Moscow’s greatness includes other countries that fled the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
If Russia manages to salvage any compromise from this war, it will terrorize not only its near abroad but the remainder of Europe.
![President Vladimir Putin](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/NYPICHPDPICT000008616477.jpg?w=1024)
American national security has all the time depended on greater than just the physical security of American territory.
History is filled with strategic miscalculations because Americans failed to understand that even in the event that they didn’t consider certain countries as enemies, they saw America as such.
The reality is that Ukraine can and must win and Russia lose.
But it surely does mean that narrowly forbidden decisions shouldn’t be made based on threats of escalation from those that have gotten away with scandalous behavior for much too long.
They led to an inexplicable mountain that Ukraine had to climb to get the equipment it needed to survive, let alone win.
Those that imagine they’re at a secure distance from combat, secure inside their borders and guarded by the oceans are confident that they will define “enough firepower not to lose, but not enough firepower to win.”
Those that live in the neighborhood know higher.
![Children's playground next to destroyed apartment buildings](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/NYPICHPDPICT000008659279.jpg?w=1024)
There ought to be no political restrictions on the supply of weapons requested by Ukraine, including the F-16 and ATACM HIMAR long-range missiles.
Putin is already waging an all-out war. Whatever we learn about Russia’s red lines regarding Crimea, we must always not pressure Kiev to grant Moscow a military shelter, a reproduction of our enemies’ shelters in Vietnam and Korea, so damaging to our operations and morale.
There are those that imagine that some acrobatic ceasefire architecture that essentially rewards Putin with 20% of Ukraine will magically make the threat disappear.
On the contrary, giving Russia any a part of a sovereign Ukraine will never ensure the safety of anyone but Russia, and positively not the American people.
(Moscow has already turned the Crimean port of Sevastopol right into a long-range launcher against Ukrainian civilians.)
This conflict will stop, if only temporarily, when each parties concurrently recognize that stopping the fight is preferable to continuing.
Assuming we’re on the lookout for greater than a brief cessation of fighting, tinkering with a “peace initiative” won’t help, but reasonably embolden a totalitarian dictator to take much more territory.
Such an incredibly ill-conceived narrative is a present to Putin, who’s waiting for what he hopes will be America’s first blink.
Even perhaps worse is the sheer folly of creating such a proposal without first considering the ultimate cost to those entrusted with keeping the peace.
Talking about ceasefires and demilitarized zones without planning how to secure any messy ceasefire or truce that might prevent a Putin repeat is a waste of time.
But one dramatic, grim principle must guide all plans.
Since 1945, aggressor states have often broken truces, treaties and UN resolutions so as to proceed their aggression: Korea 1950, Vietnam 1975, Sinai 1967 and 1973, Kuwait 1990, Georgia 2008, Syria chemical weapons 2016 and in fact Ukraine 2014 and again last 12 months.
None related to US military presence or security commitments.
Where there have been US troops and clear commitments, aggression was consistently deterred or defeated: Berlin, Korea after 1950, Taiwan, Vietnam 1972, Sinai after 1973, Kuwait after 1991, Syria after 2018.
Even when American forces were at symbolic strength (Syria, Sinai, Berlin), this principle held.
The explanation for that is to help Ukraine permanently defeat the Russian empire.
Amidst all the hand-wringing and doubting and embarrassing tremors each time Putin and his horde release a recent verbal threat, it is nice to do not forget that the United States can be a superpower.
He’s a frontrunner of countries strong enough not to enter right into a Faustian cope with Putin, who revels in any utterance that implies he has the upper hand.
Debra Cagan is a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former State and Defense Department official. James F. Jeffrey of the Wilson Center is a former Deputy National Security Adviser and Ambassador to Iraq and Turkey.