Uniting the West against Putin’s Russia has succeeded beyond expectation. But what comes next won’t be any easier.
By now it’s clear that the shock-and-awe tactics of the initial Russian invasion into Ukraine ultimately failed Vladimir Putin on more than one level. Not only was the Russian military unable to take control of the country in a blitzkrieg-like defeat, but the unambiguous and brutal nature of the attack—this was no “minor incursion” after all—has apparently served to unite the West. Before Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine, the very utility and vitality of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was up for debate. Today, NATO and its major partners have responded with virtually unprecedented diplomatic cohesion against Russia.
As tempting as it may be to celebrate the fighting spirit of the Ukrainians, the impressive unity of the West and the military failures of the Russians, it’s critical to realize that as the war progresses, transforms or ends, the West’s cohesion will be tested far more than it already has been. Clarity of purpose accompanied the beginning of the war; its ending may be much less clear cut.
Of course, that is not the mood of the West right now. At the moment, emotions and expectations are running high. More than a month into the war, despite devastating casualties, Russia has still not gotten close to taking over Kyiv and displacing its leadership—a feat that military planners had estimated might only take a few days. News feeds are filled with stories on Russian losses of key military equipment; the shipments of aid and arms into Ukraine; the infamously stalled 40-mile convoy north of Kyiv; and the steady parade of companies pulling out of Russian territory. Ukrainian refugees are met with open arms across Europe and beyond.
President Joe Biden’s whirlwind diplomatic tour in Europe last week was designed not only to display this momentum and unity, but to advance it. And in many ways, it succeeded. As European leaders met in Brussels, their public messages were remarkable in their consistency and commitment to stay the course and to continue to funnel money, aid and arms to Ukrainian defenders. There was not agreement in all areas. The most difficult and impactful challenges on the table, such as the uneven burden of the bite of sanctions across countries; the ongoing debate over whether—and how quickly—it is possible to wean Europe off dependence on Russian oil and gas; and who will bear the costs of hosting millions of Ukrainian refugees remain up for debate. But as a whole, the West appears remarkably aligned and shares a strong sense of moral purpose.
But how long can this remarkable unity last? As efforts to reach a negotiated peace agreement continue, albeit haltingly, the process may present some difficult choices for NATO and its allies.
Assume, for a moment, that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy agrees to a peace deal that commits Ukraine to neutrality—that it will never join NATO—and that it will become part of the European Union. Assume also that Russian forces withdraw to the Donbas, and the settlement of its territorial status is left to another day.
What then? Suddenly, the United States and its allies may be asked to lift sanctions—whether by the terms of the deal, or even by President Zelenskyy himself—even if U.S. intelligence indicates that Russian forces are simply regrouping to try again at some future date. The moral suasion that was deployed so well to launch sanctions does not so much offer a guidebook to the lifting—whether partial or full—of them, nor may it be persuasive enough to reimpose sanctions if things go wrong. And at least sanctions are something that the West can choose to lift; stopping a war crimes investigation, for example, is harder to use as a bargaining chip at the negotiation table.
These will not be the only challenges to the unity of the West when the war transforms. Even now, allies are split on the delicate question of where to stop, and where to press, Russia—especially as President Zelenskyy publicly criticizes leaders for not doing more. For his part, President Biden has been more strident by suggesting that Russia be removed from the G20 and ad-libbing a comment in Warsaw, Poland that could be interpreted as a call for regime change. However, other European leaders have been more cautious. French President Emmanuel Macron, for example, warned against any type of rhetorical escalation without directly criticizing Biden. The balance between overreaching and taking full advantage of every possible lever to halt the violence in Ukraine is not so easy to find.
These are not unresolvable questions or insurmountable challenges. However, they may not have a clear-cut, obvious solution. And the odds are that it will become only more difficult for the West to stick together—not easier. In going to Europe, Biden and his team made it clear that they recognize as much, and that they’re committed to staying the course. But in a war that has defied expectations from the beginning, it will be difficult to prepare our allies—and ourselves—for the twists and turns that likely lie ahead.
