“Escalation management” in Ukraine makes the West less safe

CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 8–14 September 2024

Six publications (The Economist, The National Interest, Foreign Policy, Politico, Globe and Mail, and Ottawa Citizen) 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

Will the Russo-Ukrainian war end in 2025? Zalmay Khalilzad (National Interest) suggests that next year could mark the end of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Significant differences between Ukraine’s and Russia’s positions on potential peace conditions are a major obstacle to peace. However, the four factors contributing to the end of the war are only getting stronger. First, the Kursk operation brought peace closer: “In the short term, it has been very impactful, bringing the war home to Russia and demonstrating that Russia is vulnerable. This development has likely made Putin’s continued war more controversial among Russians. The attack against Russia has also been a morale booster in Ukraine…And if the occupation of Russian territory can be sustained, this can be a bargaining chip in any negotiations about the end of the war.” Second, at the same time, Ukraine’s advance into Russia has been risky: “Some 10,000 troops had to be pulled away from their previous critical defense mission in Eastern Ukraine, an opportunity for Russia to exploit as they have indeed done, especially in Donetsk, where Putin is making progress. Russian tactics are becoming ever more brutal, resulting in increased casualties and losses for Ukrainians both on the battlefield in Eastern Ukraine and elsewhere.” Third, for both Ukraine and Russia, the possibilities for large-scale military escalation are very limited and risky. Fourth, the processes in the US and the EU are not conducive to the indefinite continuation of the war: “The U.S. role has been critical in supporting Ukraine’s heroic resistance, and the Europeans have been the second most important source of support. However, in the aftermath of our presidential elections, the United States is likely to reduce its support over time.” According to Khalilzad, the US and other allies should promote peace through negotiations: “Support for Ukraine must remain vigorous because, without that, Putin will not be interested in a negotiated settlement, and an equally vigorous engagement with both Russia and Ukraine on modalities of negotiations and terms for a reasonable outcome.”

Clearing Ukraine’s mines is crucial for global food security. Howard Buffett and Tony Blair (Economist) argue that demining Ukraine is crucial for global food security. Ukraine is currently the most heavily mined country, “with up to 139,300 square kilometres of land—an area larger than England—studded with millions of landmines.” This is a major obstacle to Ukraine’s post-war recovery and economic development. Clearing mined areas will require historic investments and new approaches to demining: “landmines and ERW [Explosive Remnants of War] cost the Ukrainian economy $11.2bn in lost GDP each year—equivalent to 5.6% of the country’s pre-war GDP.” According to the authors, agricultural exports have suffered the most due to mining: “Annual Ukrainian exports are $8.9bn (13.2%) lower than they otherwise would be owing to landmines and ERW.” The decline in agricultural exports from Ukraine has hit the communities in the Global South hardest: “Before the war, nearly 90% of Ukraine’s wheat exports went to food-insecure countries in Africa and Asia.” According to expert estimates, “It will take significant funding—the World Bank estimates $34.6bn—and extraordinary innovation to demine Ukraine safely and at a pace that ensures its ability to recover economically.” In the opinion of Buffett and Blair, “Increasing the pace of demining is a challenge of global importance and Ukraine needs the world’s support. With innovative approaches to financing and clearance, the country’s farmers can return to their land to continue feeding the world’s most vulnerable populations while helping to revive Ukraine’s economy.”

Supporting Ukraine is the right decision. Matt Gallager (Politico) argues that J.D. Vance is right about the war in Iraq, but he is wrong about Russia’s war against Ukraine. He is the face of a new movement in the GOP, “led by veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” who oppose traditional Republican support for aggressive foreign policy interventions. They plan to force Washington to stop supporting Ukraine in its confrontation with Russian aggression, based on their own experience of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: “64 percent of vets think the war in Iraq was not worth it. Fifty-eight percent said the same of Afghanistan. And that was before 2021’s ugly withdrawal from Kabul.” Based on their own experience, J.D. Vance and other veterans have come to wrong conclusions about Ukraine. Unlike the Iraq War, Ukrainians fight is unambiguous: “A foreign adversary has invaded the borders of a would-be U.S. ally in an effort to eliminate its sovereign existence. Americans who support Ukraine are not looking for weapons of mass destruction, or imposing our will on a country that does not want us; we are helping stare down a dictator who has his eyes on Western democracy itself.” According to the author, “it’s only in Ukraine…America is capable of being what we say we are. Which sounds, perhaps, like an empty aspiration. But on the ground, it’s anything but.” Support for Ukraine is also driven by pragmatic goals: “The geopolitical chess is real, as are the economics. It’s important to acknowledge this when making the case for continued aid to the American people. But for me personally, it matters that 90 percent of Ukrainians have a positive view of the United States and consider us an ally. Everyday, regular people want and request our assistance.” According to Gallager, “It’s guaranteed that someone with military experience will become vice president come November, whether it’s Vance or National Guard veteran Tim Walz. Whoever it is, here’s hoping they remember that abstractions, ideas and values can be much more than hollow words to people in pursuit of them. Foolish idealism is not leadership. Neither is a cynicism so curdled and narrow that nothing is worth defending.”

“Escalation management” in Ukraine makes the West less safe. Edward Hunter Christie (Foreign Policy) emphasizes that Washington should abandon a failed approach to Moscow that does not learn or self-adjust. The framework of Washington’s support for Kyiv was determined by the desire to achieve two key goals: “to keep the war from going beyond Ukraine’s borders or escalating to the nuclear weapons stage.” To achieve these goals, Washington has set very strict limits on Western assistance to Kyiv: “Support is restricted to diplomatic, economic, and security assistance, while the United States and other NATO states must not become belligerents in the war. In short, sanctions and weapons supplies, but no boots on the ground or pilots in the air.” With these restrictions, aimed at managing the escalation, the US has “placed a very tight leash on Kyiv’s prosecution of the war.” Washington’s theory of escalation management finds expression in the vague formula of “as long as it takes”—rather than declaring the goal to be a Ukrainian victory and using the formula of “whatever it takes,” which is preferred by many European states. Washington’s ineffective algorithm exposes Ukraine to danger and additional avoidable losses. The focus should not be on escalation management, but on eliminating the threat: “the demolition of the means that Russia uses to attack Ukraine.” According to Christie, “The outcome, then, is not a war that stays small but no war at all. To achieve that vision—the only vision that will secure long-term peace in Europe—Washington needs a new algorithm.”

Controversy erupts over “Russians at War” for whitewashing Russian soldiers’ actions. Lidiia Karpenko (Globe and Mail) reminds readers how the Russian-Canadian filmmaker Anastasia Trofimova’s documentary “Russians at War” has sparked controversy for its portrayal of Russian soldiers in Ukraine. The film, which received $340,000 from the Canada Media Fund, and was shown at the Toronto International Film Festival on Sept. 17 outside of the official program, attempts to highlight the human side of Russian soldiers. The filmmaker shows how some of whom took up arms believing they were “going to vanquish Ukrainian Naziism” and restore “cultural unity between Russia and Ukraine,” a narrative aligned with Kremlin propaganda. The director claims she saw no war crimes during her seven months alongside Russian troops, which raises doubts about the documentary’s objectivity. “Ms. Trofimova also said she was there (in the occupied territory of Ukraine) without Moscow’s permission. This is impossible to imagine: Nothing happens so easily in totalitarian Russia,” the author notes. This, combined with Trofimova’s past work for RT, a state-funded Russian media outlet banned in Canada, raises concerns about her credibility and motives. Critics argue that the documentary whitewashes Russian soldiers’ actions, portraying them as victims rather than perpetrators of war crimes. Karpenko adds that “it is Russian people…who have been killing Ukrainian civilians for three years,” and emphasizes that this portrayal diminishes the atrocities committed by Russian forces. With at least 11,743 Ukrainian civilian deaths since Russia’s full-scale invasion (the number is likely to be underestimated), the film’s failure to acknowledge these crimes is deeply problematic. The author asserts that if Trofimova truly believes the war is unjustified and illegal, she should provide her footage to international courts to hold those responsible accountable.

Controversial documentary’s message deserves to be heard. Marsha Lederman (Globe and Mail) argues that the “Russians at War” documentary offers a raw and unflinching portrayal of the devastating human cost of war. The film does not glorify Russia, its army, or its war effort, nor does it demonize Ukraine. “Anastasia Trofimova’s film is a no-holds-barred reproach of war in general. It is a raw, unflinching documentation specifically of the war going on right now in Ukraine. You can feel the cold and the desperation as you watch. The bombed-out buildings in Ukraine, the Russian body bags,” Lederman writes. The author stressed that the film presents an anti-war message through graphic and powerful footage of destruction, death, and the hopelessness felt by soldiers on both sides. The film humanizes young Russian soldiers, many of whom are coerced into fighting for a war they do not believe in, while exposing the horrific realities faced by Ukrainians as victims of Russia’s aggression. The MMS notes that the film, however, obscures the most critical aspect of the narrative — the Ukrainian perspective on the war. Lederman adds that the cancellation of the film’s North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), following threats and public criticism, has sparked controversy. (TIFF still organized two screenings of “Russians at War” outside of the festival program on Sept. 17) While safety concerns are valid, the suppression of the film has been criticized as a cowardly move that stifles an important anti-war narrative. “Russians at War” is an essential condemnation of war, akin to the award-winning All Quiet on the Western Front, and its silencing denies the public a vital, eye-opening experience that documents the human toll of the current war, according to the author. “And a talented filmmaker, without an official posting or even a press pass, followed [Russian soldiers] almost all the way to the front so that we could know about it. And be outraged. Not at the film; at the war,” Lederman concludes. The film’s opponents say it’s inconceivable that Trofimova could have embedded with the Russian soldiers without the permission or knowledge of Russia’s Defense Ministry.

Canada to send WWII-Era pistols to Ukraine in December. David Pugliese (Ottawa Citizen) writes that Canada is ramping up its military support for Ukraine by sending Second World War-era Browning Hi-Power pistols and other decommissioned weapons to aid in the fight against Russian forces. Originally set for destruction, 10,500 of the 9-mm handguns will be shipped to Ukraine starting in December. This move follows Canada’s ongoing efforts to bolster Ukraine’s defence, which also include the donation of C6 machine guns, M113 chassis, Coyote light armoured vehicles, and CRV-7 rocket motors. “These come from a stockpile of C6 legacy guns…and it was decided that they would be…available for donation to Ukraine,” confirmed National Defence spokeswoman Andrée-Anne Poulin. In total, Canada has committed over $19.5 billion in assistance to Ukraine, including $4.5 billion in military equipment, such as tanks, anti-tank weapons, and drones. Despite these weapon systems being decommissioned or considered surplus by the Canadian Armed Forces, they remain valuable assets in Ukraine’s fight against Russia. Defence Minister Bill Blair emphasized the significance of this aid, noting that surplus equipment from the Canadian military is being “repurposed or used for spare parts by Ukraine,” addressing specific requests made by Ukraine’s military.