No, Ukraine is not the dam holding back Russia from trying to consume the rest of Europe by Darin Gaub, Lt Col (ret) I was sent this picture a few days ago and asked if it reflected reality geographically or geopolitically. My answer was a simple one to start: “No, if Russia wanted to try to invade and control the rest of Europe, there are faster and easier routes to do that. This picture reflects a false narrative whereby too many want to draw the United States and the West into another unnecessary conflict based on an unrealistic and dishonest threat scenario where Russia’s goals and capabilities are inaccurately advertised.” Expanding on my statement, let’s consider the following from solely a geographical perspective. • To claim that Ukraine is the path Russia would choose to use to pursue the remainder of Europe is like saying the United States intends to invade Mexico but only use the Baja Peninsula. Each of these examples is choosing the hardest path forward and would make no sense if, in Russia’s case, Europe was the goal and not only Ukraine in total or in part. • History instructs us that any invading army would use three routes to move east or west. One is generally through the Baltics, the second through Belarus, and the third through Ukraine. As someone who planned many contingency operations for large-scale possibilities on multiple continents, I would never recommend that Russia invade Europe by way of Ukraine. There is no logical military reason to do so when the central and northern routes allow much faster access to Europe with fewer impediments. Cutting Ukraine off from Europe would also be more effective than invading Ukraine at its strongest defensive points. • I could go on, but these points are the major ones necessary to answer the question I was asked. The contingencies I planned for in Eastern Europe take up multiple binders; there is no way to account for that in a short essay. But it’s more dangerous than a simple lack of understanding of what is happening in Europe and the world today. This picture reflects the assumptions of those who’ve bought into the false narrative intended to lure the Western world into a wider conflict. This conflict could grow to its worst form, a nuclear exchange between two of the world’s superpowers, though I think the odds of that are low. Here are the critical assumptions behind the picture and why they are wrong. Russia wants all of Europe. Russia does not desire to invade Europe and inherit its problems. For example, it would rather sell energy to the countries of Europe for the benefit of the Russian people. Imagine what a major conflict covering the European continent would do to the nations Russia invaded and to Russia. This has happened in one form before, and Russia would only become the owner of a terrible situation where nobody benefits. If we want to stop fomenting war in Europe, stop expanding NATO. Russia can take all of Europe. Russia spent the last three years taking a sliver of Ukraine; they are not capable of taking on all of Europe/NATO anyway. Not too many years ago, I told a room of senior officers that Russia is not the boogeyman we make it out to be unless we are trying to make an enemy. Another example of the tail wagging the dog. Make no mistake, Putin is a thug, and so is Zelensky. We must work with the leaders of nations even when we find them distasteful. Imagine being another nation dealing with Biden for the last four years; our hands are not clean. The simple military reality is that Russia does not have the military and economic capability to invade and conquer Europe. Russia would only have a typical poorly led military if it did not have nuclear, space, and cyber capabilities. Dangerous, to be sure, but not an existential threat to Europe’s existence. (The use of nuclear weapons would change things so much I’m not going to account for that.) For the sake of argument, let us assume that the map below is accurate enough to demonstrate this military reality. Over three years of constant war, Russia managed to control the areas in red inside the red box. The selection includes the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia took over in 2014 without firing a shot. It is unrealistic to assume that a nation on a war footing that took three years to capture that limited amount of land could take over most of the land shown on the rest of the map. Ukraine is just a country trying to secure freedom from an evil oppressor. This war is terrible, and the suffering on all sides should not be happening. I’ve always stood with the people who suffer in war rather than align with their governments in an oversimplified binary good-versus-evil construct. To look for corrupt governments and officials in Ukraine and Russia is easy; it’s easy to do the same to our United States government. Zelensky canceled elections, closed churches while jailing pastors, eliminated the free press, and is overseeing the sale of untrained citizens to human traffickers who capture people, cuff them, and drop them off at the front with no training and only sometimes a weapon. The middlemen of this operation are military and police forces who make money from the sale and avoid the front lines simultaneously. Sadly, one must assume that much of that money came from American taxpayers. Ukraine was corrupt before the war and still is. So is Russia. This does not justify continued killing, nor does it mean we should be unwilling to try to bring both sides to the table and end the conflict. It’s better to deal with the reality in front of us than to keep saying, “Ukraine, good; Russia, bad.” NATO expansion is not a legitimate concern to Russia. We Americans often fail to put ourselves in the shoes of another person or nation and seek to understand their perspective. We also forget history too often. Understanding where another nation’s leader is coming from does not mean agreeing with them, but it is critical to begin to understand their actions. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the creeping growth of NATO is the primary threat to Russia from their perspective. Therefore, Russia will not tolerate a NATO presence in Ukraine, much less having them as a NATO member. Russia views Ukraine much like China views Taiwan; their position is non-negotiable, and we need to acknowledge that going forward. Our counterargument is that NATO is only a defensive alliance, so Russia’s concerns are unfounded. Russia points to NATO action in the Balkans in the 1990s and NATO leadership in Afghanistan and surrounding nations to prove its point that NATO is an offensive military organization that it does not want on its doorstep. Imagine if, during the Cold War, Russia expanded the Warsaw Pact to include Mexico and Canada. Would we sit back and let that happen? Russia is an aggressor to the point that world peace is at stake, and no other risks are higher. If we stay too focused on the front lines between Russia and Ukraine, we miss a lot of what’s happening globally. China is the most significant risk to the United States, militarily and ideologically. If that threat continues to grow unchecked, we could have a much bigger problem on our hands. We need to do what we can to bring the war in Ukraine to an end and explore a different future. One where Russia could even grow closer to Europe and the West. Before we self-righteously determine that this is a horrible idea, we need to consider if it’s better to keep pushing Russia towards China. I am simplifying this possibility to prove a point. We must live in the real world, not an idealized world. I prefer to maintain positive ties with Russia despite all we know about them, then to see them become an even bigger ally of China. Russia and China are historical adversaries, but through our actions, we could force them closer together, and that’s a scenario where we lose. I have skipped over or simplified a lot of history to make this a short essay. I would encourage all interested in these topics to read histories about Ukraine and Russia, the post-Soviet era history of NATO expansion and the war in the Balkans, and Sino-Russian relations. For now, I hope I have been able to dispel some of the myths about how the Ukraine war is about stopping Russia from invading all of Europe. Though I welcome European nations spending more for their defense, I don’t think we will see the Russians try to throw a victory parade in Paris. Some will disagree, and I welcome the debate. _______________________ Lt Col (ret), US Army, Darin Gaub (@DLGaub) is a senior geopolitical and military strategist, former Blackhawk helicopter pilot and Battalion Commander, executive leadership coach, ordained Bible minister, and serves on the boards of multiple volunteer national and state-level organizations. The views presented are those of the author and do not represent the views of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, or its components. He can be found on Rumble and Substack. As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.
