The battle for Ukraine isn’t just a military conflict but a conflict between democracy and authoritarianism.
For supporters of the Ukrainian cause against Russian aggression, the past few months have not brought much good news. Recently, news of Ukrainian retreats has filled media headlines. Most significantly, in mid-February, Ukraine retreated from the village of Avdiivka, left in ruins as the result of months of constant Russian artillery bombardment.1 Furthermore, in the midst of a delay in aid from democratic, Western nations, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other top officials have occupied much of the conversation with their repeated calls to Western leaders to liberate aid. Chief among them is the Biden administration, which to date has delivered the largest amount of support to Ukraine, but whose proposed foreign aid package, which includes additional funds for military and economic aid for Ukraine, is currently collecting dust in Congress.2
It would be a mistake to neglect the arguments on the part of those who are not so supportive of continuing Western assistance to Ukraine. Something that’s been asked is why should we go poking into some conflict in Eastern Europe and potentially escalating tensions with a nuclear-armed Russia? It’s also been commented that the U.S. ought not to throw the proverbial stones from its glass house, seeing that it, too, has a questionable history with imperialism. What makes us any better than Russia? I would say that both of these concerns have their points: providing arms to Ukraine certainly has its risks, and we can talk ad nauseam about the times the U.S. has arguably fallen short of its projected ideals with its own foreign policy. With all of that being said, I would contend that we risk missing the point. The consequences of Russia’s war in Ukraine spread out far broader than just Ukraine: it is the largest manifestation of a broader authoritarian attack on the post-war liberal world order, a world order that, for all its flaws, has ushered in an unprecedented level of peace and prosperity. The consequences of Putin succeeding in Ukraine would reach far outside of Europe, with similarly-minded “strongmen” potentially feeling further emboldened to rewrite the rules of the international game through force, therefore plunging the world further into chaos and disorder.
Russia’s war on Ukraine is only one offensive in the ongoing authoritarian challenge to the democratic world order. From Putin in Europe to Xi Jinping’s persistent threats against Taiwan, autocrats are employing a common playbook aimed at undermining democratic regimes all over the world. This “playbook,” as I refer to it, holds a fundamental ethos: democracy is ill-equipped to handle the problems of the 21st century. In this article, I wish to outline three facets of the “authoritarian playbook” against democracy and argue how aid to Ukraine now, namely in the form of military support, goes a long way towards spoiling these autocratic aims.
Aim One: Exploit Democratic Dysfunction
One of the most apparent vulnerabilities of democratic regimes is that they are composed of complex political institutions that detail how the state is managed. To the autocrat’s folly, this minutia is further complicated when all of this is hampered by internal political polarization. Unfortunately, we see a great example of this in the United States, where Congress is currently stalled on Ukraine aid due to unrelated partisan bickering relating to immigration.
But mustering the strength to give aid to Ukraine now would send the unmistakable message that democracies can still get big things done, even in the midst of internal strife. By overcoming partisan divisions and fulfilling the work that is still supported by a plurality of citizens across Western states, democracies can show that they still possess the institutional capacity to respond to crises.
Aim Two: Expose the Delicacy of Democracy
In Ukraine, Putin has made a very simple calculation: he can outlast the West. For reasons ranging from perceived electoral changes that could usher in the removal of aid to Ukraine (chief among them being a Biden-Trump rematch in the 2024 presidential election) to just outright fatigue, Putin is betting that, at the end of the day, Western democracies will not have what it takes to stand strong in the face of a long, drawn-out struggle in Ukraine. By continuing to deliver aid to Ukraine, a significant wrench would be thrown into this Russian calculation. Democracy would indeed be showing, not just telling, that it is in this for the long haul––not only regarding Ukraine but anywhere else that it need be.
Aim Three: Reveal Democratic Fright in the Face of Authoritarian Aggression
Putin has exploited the unwillingness on the part of Western capitals in the past to directly confront him over his past aggressions. Ranging from his bombardment of Aleppo in Syria to his annexation of Crimea in 2014, the desire in the past to avoid directly confronting Putin over his aggressions was predicated on the fear of what potential escalation with Russia could bring. Aid to Ukraine, particularly military aid, vitally dispels this, for it offers the chance of dealing a strategic blow to Putin. When this war comes to a conclusion, the calculation on the part of the Kremlin must be that it lost far more––in the form of lost troops, resources, etc.–– compared to whatever it is the Kremlin was able to gain. In like manner, this provides the truly significant deterrent needed to prevent other authoritarian actors of aggression, such as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
* * *
The Ukrainian people have righteously garnered the respect and admiration of millions all over the world. They have stood strong in the face of barbarous attacks on civilian population centers. They have spectacularly beaten back the odds, defying metrics that predicted Russian victory in a matter of days. Through it all, the country still stands. Their great spirit of resolve must not go unnoticed and unsupported. In our deliberations over continuing aid to Ukraine, we must remember that the implications of our actions (and inaction) reach far beyond Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odesa. We have not only a moral obligation to help the Ukrainian people but all the incentives in the world to do just that; in doing so, we will strengthen the democratic shield to the liberal world order. At the end of the day, autocrats around the world believe that democracy has seen its best days. By giving more aid to Ukraine, we can go a long way in proving that assessment wrong.