Why every American voter should care about what happens in Ukraine

In August, Ukrainian forces rolled over the Russian border into Kursk Oblast, an administrative district in Russia, shattering what was a quasi-stalemate that had been fought solely on Ukrainian territory. Ukraine’s incursion was the first time Russia’s borders had been crossed by a foreign army since World War II.
While Kiev is keeping its exact intensions close to the vest, this is likely a strategy to make up for ground lost to Russia while U.S. munitions were held up by Congress: to trade captured land for captured land. A few days ago, the U.S. and the U.K. accused Iran of selling short-range ballistic missiles to Russia. As I write this, the Biden administration is considering lifting restrictions on the use of U.S. weapons, allowing the Ukrainians to fire them into Russia if needed. And yet, if there is a plan to actually achieve victory in Ukraine, the public has yet to see it.
With the presidential election around the corner, voters should be concerned.
To be sure, the Ukraine war was prominent in the recent presidential debate, and it gets substantial coverage in the media. But national security and foreign affairs consistently rate significantly lower than many other issues in terms of voters concerns, Ukraine included. This is understandable. Voters care more about their daily lives — how much they pay at the grocery store, if they are getting clean water, if their taxes are going up and so forth — than they would about what is going on in a foreign land few Americans have visited.
Still, it’s a mistake. In five, 10 or 100 years, the outcome of the Ukraine war will likely have far more impact, on America and the world, than any other single issue before voters in 2024. Also, U.S. presidents have far greater impact on foreign policy than they do grocery prices. But grocery prices can be significantly impacted by foreign policy. Ukraine is rightly called the “Breadbasket of the World,” and the war has significant impacts on world food markets.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s goal is clear: the reconstitution of something resembling the Soviet Union. For decades, he has stated that he considers the collapse of the USSR the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” something he reiterated frequently prior to 2022, all while the Kremlin claimed any notion that he was contemplating an invasion of Ukraine was “fear mongering.”
Putin can be excused for being surprised at the level of resistance he ran into when he did so anyway. In 2008, Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia, 20% of which it still occupies. Putin paid little price for this. And 2014 was the true beginning of the Ukraine invasion, when Putin took Crimea. Rather than dole out serious punishments, then-President Barack Obama almost immediately stressed that Putin would not be “dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force.” Again, no meaningful price was paid. If endless references to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler have exhausted their effectiveness, these facts demonstrate the same fundamental truth: appeasement kills because, as chess master and Russian dissident Garry Kasparov once said, it “raises the stakes, postpones the inevitable, and encourages aggressors to assume they can act with impunity.”
True, Putin has met stiff resistance, and the Biden-Harris administration deserves credit for continually pushing to fund Ukraine. But if Ukraine falls, or if Russia even maintains the ground it has gained, Putin, and other aggressors like him, will undoubtedly view the invasion as a victory. And Putin wants victory: first in Ukraine, and then to reconstitute the rest of the Soviet Union.
Keep in mind: The Soviet Union once functionally owned half of Germany, and would have gone further if NATO hadn’t stopped them.
Should Russia continue its aggressive efforts, particularly if it targets NATO members, the war will inevitably involve America even more, likely with American boots on the ground. A Russian victory would be even worse. Most Americans cannot even imagine a world where Europe is dominated, directly or coercively, by Russia. But this scenario would profoundly affect what Americans buy and sell, how they travel, how they live, and how they govern themselves. The post-World War II, post-Cold War order that has been incredibly good to America would cease to exist. Our friends, and our foes, know it.
No American president, no matter how strong or savvy, will dictate the outcome of the Ukraine war. But presidents have their greatest power in the area of foreign policy and national security, much more than their influence on domestic policy. Congress’s power to appropriate funds and declare war are important, but it is the president that sends and accepts ambassadors. It’s the president that appoints the secretaries of state and defense. It’s the president that liaises with foreign heads of state, and who is America’s commander in chief. In other words, the next president will control the foreign policy of the United States to a degree of magnitude more than they do domestic policy, which is shared to a greater degree with Congress, governors, state legislatures and countless local officials.
During the recent presidential debate, former President Donald Trump pointedly refused to say whether he wanted Ukraine to win. Shortly thereafter, his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, floated a plan that would seemingly hand Putin large chunks of Ukraine. This policy is catastrophically bad, and it would be inconceivable that any Republican since Eisenhower, prior to Trump, would ever have supported such a policy. Trump’s former national security advisor H.R. McMasters was frank in his recent book, saying, “I cannot understand Putin’s hold on Trump.” Neither can I. But I do know, for the good of America, if he wins, we should all hope his position changes. Responsible Republicans should be doing whatever they can on this front.
Harris, for her part, aggressively defended Ukraine and suggested the obvious: that Poland and other allies are in harm’s way. She deserves credit for that, as she does for her administration’s savvy in convincing a reluctant Congress to approve Ukraine aid earlier this year. It’s an odd turnaround for the Democrats to be the party most in favor of fighting Russia, but that’s what’s happening. Harris is even running ads in the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that have large Ukrainian, Polish, Lithuanian and other Eastern European-origin Americans.
However, the fact that we are still debating whether we’ll allow the Ukrainians to use our weapons the same way the Russians use Iranian weapons shows that the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the war has been far from ideal. The aggressor still has the initiative. Standing by Ukraine is preferable to the alternative, but formulating a plan for victory is best. We aren’t there yet.
Public discourse has reached a level of overstatement that is debilitating to our politics. But this is not hyperbole: The outcome of the Ukraine war, the first land war in Europe since 1945, will have massive, worldwide ripple effects, particularly if Ukraine is not victorious. And the next president will have significant say over what happens next. People should make their voice heard. And they should let it be known that Ukraine is a top priority.
Cliff Smith is a lawyer and a former congressional staffer. He lives in Washington, D.C., where he works on national security-related issues. His views are his own.