West’s reluctance to fully commit to Ukraine’s victory enables Russian fascism

CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 16–22 June 2024

Six publications (The National Interest, Foreign Policy, The Economist, Globe and Mail, Washington Post, and The New York Times) were selected to prepare this report on how Ukraine has been portrayed in the North American press during the past week. The sample was compiled based on their impact on public opinion as well as on their professional reputation, popularity among the readership, and topical relevance. These publications represent centrist viewpoints on the political spectrum.

This MMS report covers only the most-read and relevant articles about Ukraine, as ranked by the respective North American publications themselves in the past week. Its scope covers promoted articles on home pages and articles from special sections on Ukraine, with the hashtag #Ukraine, from the paper editions of the publications, and about Ukraine from opinion columns and editorials.

MMS summaries

A new Marshall Plan for Ukraine should be developed. Arthur Herman and Brandt Pasco (National Interest) argue that it is now time to plan for Ukraine’s recovery as a strong free-market democracy. There is no doubt that Ukraine must win the war. However, victory in peace is no less important than victory in war. Ukraine has the potential to become “Europe’s next high-tech hub” if properly funded. Without investment in recovery, Ukraine’s prospects look bleak: “The World Bank Group, the European Commission, and the United Nations have released a new report estimating the cost of rebuilding the shattered country to be $486 billion, compared to $411 billion just a year ago. That includes replacing the estimated 10 percent of Ukrainian housing stock destroyed in the war, as well as repairing the damage to the transportation systems ($73 billion), commerce and industry ($68 billion), agriculture ($58 billion), and the energy sector ($49 billion).” Given the right legal framework and a proper injection of venture capital funding, free-market-oriented reconstruction policy could pay the way and even provide a return for investors. According to Herman and Pasco, “Just as the original Marshall Plan served to halt the spread of Soviet influence over postwar Western Europe, the rapid reconstruction of Ukraine as a vibrant, free-market economy will be a bulwark against Russian imperial designs in Eastern Europe. It can also open a new chapter for Europe as a whole and demonstrate how democracy and freedom can be rekindled from the ashes of war.”

Ukraine needs a “wet gap crossing” to NATO. Ann Marie Dailley (Foreign Policy) emphasizes that the West should build a “bridge” to Ukraine’s membership in NATO. The metaphor of a bridge is apt, as building a bridge in wartime is an incredibly complex and responsible operation, which military planners call a “wet gap crossing.” Crossing water during hostilities is an extreme risk, but sometimes it is the only chance to gain a strategic advantage. Something similar is happening with Ukraine’s accession to NATO: “If NATO nations are truly serious about bringing Ukraine into NATO, then creating a bridge to NATO cannot just be a clever diplomatic metaphor, and it should not be attempted merely to get to the other side, like the Russians at Siverskyi Donets. It has to be approached like the difficult, sophisticated, multifaceted operation that it is, and it must be part of a broader strategy for postwar Euro-Atlantic security, as was the Moselle crossing in World War II.” Therefore, in the author’s opinion, when planning Ukraine’s future politicians and diplomats should take four steps similar to military planning a “wet gap crossing.” The first step is to consider all options that can ensure security in Europe. According to Dailley, “There are no good options short of NATO membership for Ukraine, and the risks of not bringing Ukraine into NATO are greater in the long run.” The second step is planning and rehearsals: “There are several options for bridging Ukraine into NATO, all of which should be considered but not all of which seem promising.” The most promising plan is for a critical mass of NATO states to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity following a cease-fire by deploying forces on Ukrainian territory. The third step is to prepare the battlefield: “For NATO, this means that members need to begin whipping together votes in favor of Ukrainian NATO accession now.” The fourth step involves implementation of the planned activities. According to Dailley, “If NATO is serious about bringing Ukraine in as a member—and it should be—then it must be clear-eyed about the risks.…And most importantly, it must commit itself to success. Anything less is likely to lead to failure.”

What does increased cooperation between North Korea and Russia mean? Bruce Klinger (National Interest) notes that President Vladimir Putin’s visit to North Korea on 18–19 June will further strengthen bilateral relations between the two autocracies and lead to increased tensions in the world. It is unlikely that the leaders of the two countries will publicly announce specific agreements, but it is possible that their military cooperation will become even deeper. Russia’s war against Ukraine has become a catalyst for improving relations between Moscow and Pyongyang: “North Korea provided diplomatic support to the invasion and began shipping munitions. Kim’s September 2023 trip to Russia and summit meeting with Putin were breakthroughs in bilateral relations and confirmed the growing military and diplomatic entente between the two countries.” To date, North Korea has sent “10,000 shipping containers which could hold 4.8 million artillery shells to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” However, the question remains what Pyongyang will receive in return. According to the author, “It is more likely that Russia would provide technology or production assistance for high-end conventional weapons such as aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines, and military reconnaissance satellites and launch technology.” Russian–North Korean relations are dangerous for Washington’s strategic interests in both Europe and the Indo-Pacific region. After all, Pyongyang is strengthening Russia’s capabilities in its war against Ukraine and threatening the US allies Japan and South Korea. According to Klinger, “The U.S. must enforce its laws more diligently and lead an international coalition to comprehensively target Pyongyang and its accomplices.”

Russia seeks to destroy the world order. Stephen R Covington (Economist) argues that Russia’s war against Ukraine is part of its revolution against the West. It is a mistake to assume that Moscow’s goal is simply to maintain regional influence; the Kremlin’s real aim “is not just to break Ukraine and stop its quest for a place in the family of Western democracies, but to dismantle the American-led security system that emerged after the second world war.” President Vladimir Putin is fuelling a revolution, and “his war against Ukraine is inextricably linked to the strategic objective of his revolution.” The Kremlin believes that the Western system poses a threat to Russia’s existence and that there are only two possible futures: “either the Western system continues to exist and Russia is strategically defeated, or the Western system is replaced and Russia continues to exist.” At present, neither the Kremlin’s revolution nor the war are coming to an end. Moscow is not ready to seek political, economic, conflict-resolution or arms agreements with Western countries. According to Covington, “The West must continue to support Ukraine’s right to self-defence and strengthen the collective security and defence of the Euro-Atlantic area and globally, as part of a strategic pattern to manage Russia’s pressure and assault on a global security system. Absent these steps, Mr. Putin would have the opportunity to match a level of aggression against the Western system with his level of revolutionary ambition.”

Ukraine needs decisive Western support to win. Chris Alexander (Globe and Mail) draws a parallel between the current war in Ukraine and the historic struggle for freedom during World War II, emphasizing the urgent need for robust international support to counter Russian aggression. Alexander compares two Jewish men—retired U.S. Air Force staff sergeant Melvin Hurwitz and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—born worlds apart, who grasp a simple truth: 80 years after D-Day, “the fight for freedom is now on Ukraine’s shoulders.” The author criticizes the West’s tepid response, highlighting the inadequacy of military aid and strategic support for Ukraine. He argues that the West’s reluctance to fully commit to Ukraine’s victory enables Russian fascism and endangers global democracy, much like the pre–World War II appeasement of the fascist powers. Alexander calls for decisive action from Western leaders, particularly those in NATO and the G7, to provide comprehensive military and economic support to Ukraine, and he urges the West to adopt a wartime posture similar to that of 1939, transferring seized Russian assets to Ukraine, toughening sanctions, and countering Kremlin propaganda. Ukraine’s victory, according to the author, is crucial for preserving global democratic values and the rule of law. He also calls on Canada to be a more active supporter: “Canada should lead. In the Second World War, a town like Ajax, Ont., rose to be the largest shell factory in the British Commonwealth. We could make such extraordinary efforts again.” Lastly, without a firm commitment to Ukraine’s success, the principles of collective self-defence and international stability are at risk. “To win this victory in Ukraine, we have to see it, commit to it—and understand fully what it requires….Ukraine’s victory would give our values, including the rule of law, a needed boost. Dictatorships in Syria, Belarus and Georgia, plus many more in Europe, Latin America and Africa, would lose crucial sponsors.”

Nature is the overlooked casualty of Russia’s war. Lidiia Karpenko (Globe and Mail) highlights the devastating impact of the war in Ukraine on both humans and the environment, underscoring the Ukrainian people’s resilience and compassion in the face of destruction. Karpenko recounts her personal experience of fleeing Kyiv with her daughter and new puppy, illustrating the deep sense of responsibility and humanity that many Ukrainians share even amid the chaos of war. This sense of duty extends beyond fellow humans to animals and nature, as many Ukrainians go to great lengths to rescue and protect pets and wildlife: “War sharpens senses and removes masks. It is a kind of test of humanity, and the majority of Ukrainians have passed it,” Karpenko notes. She also details Russia’s environmental devastation in Ukraine, which includes the widespread ecological damage from military actions and deliberate acts of ecocide. According to the Ukrainian government, the war has affected hundreds of species, contaminated vast areas of land and water, and released significant greenhouse gases. “Frequent fires from Russian missiles and other weapons are also destroying the unique biodiversity in Ukraine’s nature reserves, including Askaniia Nova, the largest protected steppe in Europe at more than 33,000 hectares, which is now under occupation,” Karpenko emphasizes. “Unique species considered to be near extinction have been reportedly removed from the natural conditions maintained in Askaniia Nova and brought to Russian zoos.” The destruction of the Kakhovka dam in summer 2023 allowed “polluted water to wash away everything in its path and kill hundreds of people, more than 20,000 animals, and tens of thousands of birds and fish.” Despite this, Ukrainians remain steadfast in their efforts to mitigate the damage, with volunteers and organizations rescuing animals and providing care in overcrowded shelters. To stop the ecocide, one must stop the aggressor state. “Russia is committing a crime against the planet, and we have only one,” the author concludes.

Ukraine’s fighting on two fronts: corruption and Russian invaders. David L. Stern and Michael Birnbaum (Washington Post) highlight how Ukrainian officials have been engaged in a vigorous battle against corruption, mirroring the intensity of their military struggle against Russian invaders. High-profile arrests and dismissals, such as the charges against former deputy head of the presidential administration Andrii Smyrnov and the firing of cybersecurity head Illya Vitiuk, reflect a concerted effort to combat graft. However, Western allies, including the United States, argue that these measures are insufficient, creating tension that jeopardizes additional economic and military support. Ukrainian anti-corruption bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the High Anti-Corruption Court, established after the 2014 EuroMaidan Revolution, are central to these efforts, but Western skepticism persists due to the significant aid at stake. Despite visible progress, U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, stress that Ukraine must further enhance transparency, rule of law, and anti-corruption measures. While President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration argues that corruption stereotypes unfairly delay critical aid, Western concerns remain strong, influenced by both the domestic and international political landscapes. Zelensky’s commitment to judicial reform and the broader anti-corruption agenda aims to align with EU standards, but public and political expectations are high. As Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna noted, Ukraine must be “saintlier than the pope” to maintain the flow of aid and support its war efforts against Russia.

Putin’s warmongering tarnishes Russia’s legacy. Serge Schmemann (New York Times) reflects on the waves of Russian and Soviet émigrés, which evince a complex mix of love for their cultural heritage and contempt for the autocratic powers that forced them out of their homeland. This sentiment of toska po rodine (longing for the homeland) is coupled with a deep resentment, encapsulated by a middle-aged partygoer’s remark: “I hate Russia, for forcing me to leave her.” The author describes how these émigrés, including his own grandparents, have historically assimilated quickly into American society, often not forming distinct communities like other immigrant groups. Brighton Beach, once a vibrant hub for Soviet Jews in the 1980s, now remains one of the few places in the U.S. with a distinctly Russian flavour. Despite the deep cultural ties, the prevailing attitude among these émigrés is a love-hate relationship, appreciating Russia’s extraordinary culture while despising its chronic misrule and corruption. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 intensified this complex relationship, adding a layer of shame to the emotions of Russian émigrés. Schmemann notes that the brutal and senseless war has made it difficult to take pride in Russia’s cultural achievements, as Putin’s actions have stained Russia’s global image and tainted its genuine greatness, highlighting the enduring impact of his war against Ukraine on the Russian identity. While Putin’s war aims to restore Russian greatness, it has instead necessitated a period of identity reconstruction for Russians as well as who identify with the country. “In the end, Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky will survive, as did Goethe and Bach, and Ukraine will be rebuilt and incorporated more closely in the West. But for Russians and those of us who identify even a little bit as Russian, something elemental has been destroyed, and a lot of painful soul-searching lies ahead,” Schmemann concludes.