Overview

The Russo-Ukraine War has been the most significant geopolitical conflict in Europe for almost a decade. Tensions began in 2014, when former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was impeached by Parliament following a series of mass protests against his rule. This angered Russia, as Yanukovych was an important ally to Russian interests and his downfall marked the rise of a more pro-Western government in Ukraine. In response, Russia launched its occupation of Crimea, a peninsula connected to the Ukrainian mainland. This eventually led to complete annexation, with Russia claiming Crimea as its own.  In 2015, pro-Russian separatists began inciting violence in eastern Ukraine, attempting to convert the land into Russian territory. This led to Ukraine forming partnerships with the European Union and NATO, both of whom condemned Russia for their actions. A ceasefire deal was reached months later, and Ukraine earned the full support of the West. The reappearance of over 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border in 2021 was driven by Russia's concerns over NATO's expansion, Ukraine's increasing ties with the West, and their desire to assert influence in the region. It was seen as a demonstration of power and a response to perceived threats to Russia's strategic interests. In February of 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, attempting to overtake the capital, Kyiv. However, they were unsuccessful, leading them to shift their focus towards other regions of Ukraine. Two years of back and forth fighting ensued, causing over half a million deaths and devastating the country.

The primary reason Ukraine has been able to resist the Russian invasion is because of the support of the West. Since the early stages of the conflict, Ukraine has been backed by NATO and the EU, as well as individual countries such as the UK and the USA. Well over $300 billion has been given to Ukraine in support of its fight against Russia, and America has provided over $55 billion dollars in military aid alone.

Pointed Summary

• Following years of increased tensions, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine
• Ukraine has received billions of dollars in aid from Western countries, allowing them to resist the invasion

Relevance

This conflict has reshaped global politics in recent years. Alliances such as NATO have welcomed two new member countries as the entire West has been united in support of Ukraine. The conflict has had significant effects on the global supply chain and economy, and has been at the source of the largest refugee crises in recent memory. 

The most significant aspect of the war is the fact that so many countries, specifically America, were willing to get involved and lend support to Ukraine, reshaping this issue from a regional conflict to one of international concern and reinvigorating the battle between Western democracy and Eastern authoritarianism. The Russo-Ukraine War is sure to influence the world for years to come.

History

History Of The Conflict

The war between Russia and Ukraine officially began in 2014 with Ukraine’s “Revolution of Dignity”, but it is impossible to understand the scope of the conflict by only studying the events following this. Though it is possible to trace back to the time when Stalin was the People’s Commissar for Nationalities and did not merge Ukraine and Russia, this section will begin with the Orange Revolution in 2004 and 2005.

At this time, Ukraine had a “pro-Russian” president named Leonid Kuchma. In November 2000, his presidency became scandalous when tapes came out confirming that he had ordered the kidnapping of journalist Georgiy Gongadze.  His term was wrapping up in 2004, where he endorsed then Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych for president. Because of the scandal, it was clear to Kuchma that Yanukovych would not win the election. After the second round of voting, Yanukovych won a supringing 2.85% increase in votes, which led to mass outrage over claims of election fraud. This, combined with the aforementioned scandal, led to the “Orange Revolution”, a series of protests with the main goal of nulling the second round of voting. A revote was ordered by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, and Viktor Yushchenko was declared the winner. But just 6 years later, Yanukovych was elected in a runoff election.

The long-held ambition of Washington was the expansion of  NATO towards Eastern Europe, something they have been working on since German reunification and the end of the Cold War. For example, former Warsaw Pact countries became NATO members. When a country joins NATO, the country gives its authority to the United States to plant troops, missiles, air bases, and other forces within its borders. When the Baltic states joined NATO, the U.S. put their equipment on the border, putting Russia at a major disadvantage if a war were to break out. For 30 years, NATO said that Georgia and Ukraine would become a part of NATO, which was a red line for Russia, and Putin specifically. Ukraine specifically, is a resource rich nation which is placed right next to the Black Sea, a year-round port. Influence over Ukrainian territory also extends to control over the Black Sea, which is vital for economic interests such as maritime trade.

In late 2013, Yanukovych was brokering a deal with the European Union to have an Association Agreement with them, making them an unofficial member of the Union. Knowing that this would bring Ukraine closer to the West, Putin said that Yanukovych was to sign a bilateral trade deal with Moscow. The CIA said that this was a strong arm, and the seemingly U.S.-backed  Euro Maidan coup ensued. In November of 2013, The National Endowment for Democracy, other “State Department think tanks”, and other government organizations watched as a successful coup was orchestrated and a pro-Western leader was installed. As a result of this, Putin took Crimea in February to March of 2014 and held a referendum: do the people of Crimea want to stay with Ukraine, or join Russia? The answer was clear: 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. During the time it took to capture Crimea, Putin made another move: starting a secessionist movement in Eastern Ukraine. He sent in what are now dubbed as “little green men” to begin a sort of “Civil-War” in the East. A country (usually) cannot join NATO or the EU if there is any civil unrest or war happening, so to compensate the United States began giving non-lethal aid to Ukraine.

This would all change in 2017, when Donald Trump took power. Instead of only non-lethal aid, Ukraine would start to receive lethal aid from the United States. They also began to receive drones from Turkey the following year. The next year, in 2019, Trump took the U.S. out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, restricting the United States and then Soviet Union from holding ballistic and cruise missiles that range 500 to 5,500 kilometers. In his comments about the potential need for missiles, Donald Trump highlighted the necessity of missiles for addressing security challenges in the Pacific, particularly concerning China. However, this raised concerns for Russia, which feared that the U.S. might also deploy missiles to Eastern Europe. This was especially problematic for Russia, given its growing mistrust of the West and the continued presence of U.S. missile defense systems in Europe, which Moscow viewed as violating arms control agreements. Trump's stance was that the U.S. could not remain the only nation bound by such treaties while other nations, such as China, were not. This led to increased tensions and uncertainty regarding missile deployments, both in the Pacific and Europe. Putin wanted to negotiate with Trump, and proposed mutual missile inspections and a moratorium on intermediate range missiles in Eastern Europe. Trump refused to negotiate. The tensions in Eastern Europe continued to rise.

When Joe Biden took power in 2021, Putin offered the same deal to Biden, and was willing to negotiate that fall. Biden did not want to negotiate, and did not respond to the offer. In December of  2021, Putin began to assemble an army of 250,000 troops around Ukraine, and the war broke out next February with an invasion. This should have been, and was expected to be, an easy win on Russia's part, but many forgot the West was funding Ukraine for almost a decade. In spring, Biden announced an extraordinarily large federal funding package for Ukrainian defense, and massive army drops began.Significant sanctions were imposed on Russian imports, Russia was banned from the SWIFT system, and it was condemned by the United Nations. The SWIFT system (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is a global messaging network used by banks and financial institutions to securely exchange transaction information. Banning Russia from SWIFT effectively cut off its access to international financial transactions, severely disrupting its economy and global trade.

Current Stances and Tried Policies

Contrary to popular belief, the United States’ policy approach surrounding funding of Ukraine has stayed somewhat continuous across time, with only two notable changes. After the Russo-Ukraine war started in 2014, the U.S. provided non-lethal aid to fund Ukraine. For example in 2014 the Obama Administration approved $53 million in non-lethal funding which included radios, armors, boats, etc. The first notable change was when the Trump Administration approved lethal aid to Ukraine. A 2017 sale was approved for Javelins, which was fully approved in 2019.The second notable change to policy was after the invasion in February, 2022. Congress was seemingly giving Ukraine almost anything they asked for, leading to what many dubbed Biden’s “blank check”. From February to pre midterm November, 2022, around $18,315,000,000 was approved to Ukraine. This was expected to change when the Republican Party took a majority in the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterm elections. This did not happen however, as around $11,485,000,000 has been approved since then.

Policy Problem

As the conflict in Ukraine shows signs of stagnation, questions have emerged about the potential necessity of American support for Ukraine's efforts. Early in 2024, the Senate approved an assistance package aimed at addressing the ongoing conflict. The package now awaits review by the House, presenting a pivotal decision for American leadership regarding its role in the evolving situation and the broader implications for European stability.The conflict in Ukraine remains highly dangerous, and the United States has been cautious in its level of support. Increasing military aid could potentially either help bring peace to the situation or lead to further escalation by Russian forces. For instance, additional U.S. support could significantly alter Ukraine's position in the war. According to American Progress, "America’s military leaders continue to warn how Putin’s war against Ukraine is creating significant 'destabilizing impacts on global security' that stretch 'far beyond the European frontlines.' America’s continued assistance to Ukraine helps advance global stability and U.S. national security – all without sending American troops into harm’s way." However, there are also concerns about the potential risks of increasing military aid. Russia possesses advanced weaponry, including nuclear capabilities, which raises concerns about further escalation. The Commons Library notes that since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, military assistance has increased, with many allies supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons for the first time. As the conflict has evolved, the types of weapons provided have become more sophisticated, leading to fears that this could further escalate the war. These developments highlight the complex dynamics of the conflict and the potential risks associated with increased foreign military support.

Policy Options

Option A: Continuing Aid

‍According to the Council on Foreign Affairs, starting in April 2022, the U.S. sent more than $106 billion worth of Aid to the Ukrainian Government. This aid was split into 65.85% for military support, including Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, HIMARS rockets, and other military support. 31.42% went to the Ukrainian government to sustain its day-to-day operations, and the rest, 2.64%, went to humanitarian support efforts. Proponents of continuing aid argue that by providing additional advanced weapons and money, the U.S. strengthened and will continue to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capabilities against Russia. With an estimated $486 billion needed for reconstruction, according to The World Bank, continuing aid will support Ukraine’s efforts in the conflict and provide them with money for reconstruction. Opponents of this option argue that Ukraine is not a formal U.S. ally, and supporting their military in a proxy war undermines American interests. Additionally, they argue that by funneling money to Ukraine, the U.S. is inflating its economy without any significant returns, benefiting only defense contracts rather than the average citizen. Lastly, opponents argue that aiding Ukraine further pushes Russia closer to China, escalating global tensions and creating a more polarized world, which ultimately harms the U.S. geopolitical standing.

‍Option B: Complete withdrawal from conflict

According to a July 2024 Brookings survey, only 39% of Americans support the current level of funding for Ukraine. This indicates that a significant portion of Americans are unsure about or actively oppose the current U.S. involvement in Ukraine. A complete withdrawal, therefore, could align with the growing sentiment that resources are being stretched thin, especially when domestic issues like inflation, healthcare, and infrastructure demand attention. Such a withdrawal would likely involve a full cessation of monetary, military, and intelligence support, potentially leading to further Ukrainian losses and allowing Russia to gain ground, as Ukraine heavily relies on American aid. Opponents of complete withdrawal argue that abandoning Ukraine could destabilize Eastern Europe and further weaken global security.

Option C: Increased involvement in conflict

Increased involvement in the Russian-Ukraine conflict would mean significantly increasing U.S. military, financial, and intelligence support to Ukraine, potentially including direct military intervention. Proponents of this option argue that taking a firm stand would help Ukraine defend its sovereignty but also send a message to adversaries like Russia and China about the U.S.’s commitment to upholding democratic values and international stability. Advocates believe that full involvement could accelerate the end of the conflict by tipping the balance in Ukraine’s favor, preventing further loss of civilian lives, and deterring future acts of aggression by regimes. However, full involvement comes with significant risks. Critics warn that escalating U.S. engagement could provoke a broader war between NATO and Russia, with potential for nuclear escalation. Moreover, the potential financial and humanitarian cost of deeper involvement, in addition to concern of the strain on the military, could lead to public backlash. For example, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has stated that "western nuclear states [...] are among the key sponsors of the criminal Kyiv regime, the main initiators of various provocative steps. We see serious strategic risks in this, leading to an increase in the level of nuclear danger." Such perspectives reflect how increased involvement could signal a threat for Russia, further reducing the prospects of negotiations and peaceful resolution.