Ukraine: Realpolitik and American Recklessness
The war in Ukraine has been raging for over 1,000 days now, with countless lives lost on both sides. Combined Russian and Ukrainian casualties since the start of the war are now registering at roughly 1 million; a figure consummate with popular comparisons drawn with the brutal, attritional warfare of the first world war. The scope of violence human tragedy is a shocking and unprecedented phenomenon in the World War IIWorldpostwar eraworld of the past eight8 decades. It is a reasonable position that the U.S. should act responsibly as the world’s dominant power, lending credence to the concerns of all parties involved in good faith—and above all—working to de-escalate this war at every opportunity. So why is it that President Biden opted for a dangerous escalation with Russia mere weeks before leaving office?
Recently, U.S. President, Joe Biden, announced that advanced American weaponry is now authorized for strikes deep into the heart of Russia. Advocates claim that Ukraine is fighting at an unfair disadvantage, and that Zelensky should be unshackled from any rules or restrictions put in place by his Western benefactors. In this way, Ukraine would be able to fight to its fullest capacity and possibly regain a larger portion of its lost territory before a settlement is reached. In this purview, Ukraine would be given the tools it needs to fight for its right to self determination—a core Western value.
This all sounds nice in an ideal world: Self determination, sovereignty from larger powers, and a world free from conflict. But they’re just that: nice things to dream about; nobody ever said the world is a fair place. At the end of the day, the world is full of conflict, injustice and competing interests. The smartest decisions made by any leader are those that recognize these inevitabilities and adjust their strategies to reflect pragmatic engagement and tangible end results, rather than hampering political solutions—or worse—exacerbating tensions by way of political inflexibility coupled with strict adherence to rigid moral and ideological dogmas. This is realpolitik.
Those with sense and reason likely recoil at the reckless and ideologically driven manner in which the West has approached the conflict in Ukraine. Unlike idealists who cling to lofty moral platitudes, realists understand that international politics is governed by the raw and unforgiving nature of power dynamics and competing interests, not aspirational dogmas. Great powers like Russia act predictably to secure their core interests—chief among them, safeguarding their immediate sphere of influence. From this perspective, Russia’s actions in Ukraine are not anomalies but calculated responses to what it perceives as existential threats on its borders. History offers countless examples of great powers prioritizing their security over the sovereignty of smaller nations. It is an uncomfortable reality, but one that defines responsible statecraft. Effective governance and diplomacy often require acknowledging and working within the harsh and sometimes unjust dynamics of global politics; such is the nature of the world.
The West, led by the United States, has instead pursued a dangerously ideological agenda, championing notions of “freedom” and “democracy” while ignoring the geopolitical realities of the region. By using these ideals as a justification for escalating the conflict, Western leaders have failed to recognize that Russia, as both a great power and a nuclear power, was always going to act decisively when confronted with perceived existential threats to its security. Furthermore, who are we to tell the Russians what constitutes a valid national security threat to the Russian state? It’s a ridiculous notion that holds little to no credibility in the court of justification. Imagine a pro-Chinese government took power in Mexico, establishing Chinese military installations right on America’s border. Without a shadow of a doubt, the U.S. would react with direct military intervention, removing the pro-China party and replacing it with an American approved alternative, violating Mexico’s sovereignty in the process. To dismiss Russia’s security concerns as illegitimate while demanding the world validate America’s is a striking display of hypocrisy, one that undermines the credibility of Western diplomacy and flies in the face of pragmatic and sound foreign policy.
The responsible path forward does not lie in escalating the conflict with the illusion that Ukraine can reclaim its lost territories without severe global repercussions. Instead, it requires a sober acknowledgment of the realities at hand: Russia’s actions, while aggressive, were foreseeable, and resolving the conflict demands a willingness to engage with these uncomfortable truths. This does not mean abandoning Ukraine but rather reframing the situation through the lens of realism—accepting that smaller states often operate within constraints imposed by larger, adjacent powers and that lasting solutions are found by balancing these asymmetries, not ignoring them. To do otherwise risks crossing catastrophic thresholds, including the possibility of a nuclear strike or a broader international conflict.
By continuing its dogmatic crusade, the West jeopardizes the very stability of the global order that it claims to uphold. What this moment calls for is not moral absolutism but clear-eyed pragmatism. Only through realpolitik—through a realistic assessment of the stakes and a readiness to confront hard truths—can the West pursue a resolution that averts further devastation and calamity on a global scale.
