In April 2021, Russia began amassing thousands of troops near the Ukraine border — the country’s largest military mobilization since the 2014 Crimea annexation. Just over half a year later in December, Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin demanded the international community bar Ukraine from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and reduce NATO troops in Eastern Europe — ultimatums which, if not met, could trigger “undefined military action.”
Unsurprisingly, the U.S. and NATO rejected these demands, prompting Russia to make the shocking move of invading Ukraine on Feb. 24 — the largest military mobilization since World War II.
Many historians, fearful of imminent global conflict, have compared this invasion to the start of the Cold War and even Germany’s initial invasion of Poland at the beginning of World War II. The U.S., a leader of NATO and a strong proponent against Russian expansion, is a major part of this brewing dispute; the potential decision to mobilize troops in Ukraine could permanently shift international relations, for better or for worse.
According to CNN, about 42% of Americans call for direct U.S. military involvement — “boots on the ground” — to help Ukraine fight for its sovereignty should sanctions fail to work, following U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s promise of a “swift, severe” response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Ultimately, however, the U.S. should not mobilize troops for the sake of avoiding greater international conflict. They should instead play an indirect military role by supplying training and weapons to Ukrainian troops, or even better, negotiating with intent of compromise. Instead of direct conflict, Washington should choose to increase support for Ukraine via arms provisions, as this approach will incur relatively little cost and risk to the U.S — a view championed by Michael Kimmage, professor of history at the Catholic University, .
If American soldiers and air power were to mobilize along the Ukraine and Russian border, this could radicalize Putin’s war aims and cause substantial short and long term financial costs. Currently, U.S forces in the region are too small to make any difference and would only become casualties, so sending in more troops and engaging in direct military intervention could carry even higher risks.
More importantly, the risk of nuclear annihilation remains very real, as direct American involvement could quickly spiral into a global war. Russian President Vladmir Putin has already issued orders to put nuclear weapons on high alert, and Russia maintains an open invitation to China to establish a coalition with Russia against the U.S.
Thus, negotiating a compromise would be the best option for the U.S., even compared to continuing its indirect military role.
Stricter economic sanctions, like that of the current disconnection of Russia from the SWIFT banking system and other tariffs, should also be imposed to prevent the deescalation of a world war.
The talks between secretary of state Anthony Blinken and Russian foreign Sergei Lavrov have not succeeded, but these sessions and direct talks between the combatant nations still remain the best opportunity to minimize casualties and de-escalate to the possibility of a larger war.