A Possible Solution to the Ukraine Crisis

There is no honor to be found in stoking unnecessary conflict.

Walter Russell Mead concludes his latest column by coming up with the wrong answer:

Coming so soon after the Afghan meltdown and at a time when many longtime allies doubt America’s word, retreat would be even worse. Russia would become more powerful and more contemptuous of the U.S., while Iran and China will view Mr. Biden as a loser and adjust their policies accordingly.

From a position of strength, the U.S. can and should offer Russia face-saving ways out of the crisis, but on substance Mr. Biden should stand firm. The reality is that Russia has lost its battle for the heart of Ukraine. After encouraging Ukraine to cast its lot with the West for three decades, America’s only honorable course is to sustain Kyiv in this hour of trial.

Mead’s recommendation is vague enough that his can’t really be pinned down, but it is combative enough that it is still dangerous. Biden should “stand firm” and “sustain Kyiv,” but what that means in practice is left to the reader to guess. Is that limited to sanctions and weapons supplies, or does it involve taking much bigger risks? At one point, he suggests a U.S. response that might lead to the “dispatch of significant NATO forces to the country,” as if linking Ukraine and NATO more closely together would do anything other than rile the Russian government. After all, it is Ukraine’s close cooperation with NATO countries that is at the heart of the current crisis.