Become a Porcupine – The Best and Only Security Guarantee for Ukraine
Ukraine has a lot in common with Finland. Both countries were attacked by their
huge Russian (or Soviet) neighbor to the east. In both cases, the Russians wanted
more space between themselves and potential threats from the west. Finland and
Ukraine fought tenaciously and heroically, but both gradually lost ground to
numerically superior forces. Both Finland and Ukraine were forced to the
negotiating table. Ukraine, its President and probably most of its people are angry
that they must negotiate an end to a conflict they did not start and give up territory
to an enemy. Zelensky just blew up a meeting at the White House by demanding
security guarantees, to prevent the Russians attacking again. Some of Ukraine’s
friends encourage Zelensky’s demands. They are mistaken.
Who is going to guarantee Ukraine’s security?
NATO? No way. NATO membership for Ukraine should never have been on the
table in the first place. Russian worry that NATO would expand eastward was
probably one of the reasons Russia attacked Ukraine back in 2014. If Westerners
had gotten into the Russian mindset and tried to understand their fears, we would
have acted differently regarding NATO membership for Ukraine. To call for
Ukrainian membership of NATO now, after three years of war with Russia is
delusional. Membership requires agreement of ALL current NATO members and
there are a few that would never agree to it. And there are other reasons, NATO
membership is off the table. There is no/no NATO security guarantee for Ukraine.
Europe? Please. Imagine Russia attacking Ukraine again in the future. Are French
troops, led by a German General, going to march to Kyiv and protect it? Liberate
it? The Poles are closer and more capable, but could the Poles stem a Russian
advance and would they want to risk everything to save their southern neighbor?
Ukrainians are not delusional. They do not want security guarantees from their
fellow Europeans. Security guarantees from Europeans would not be worth the
paper they were written on.
The United States? The U.S. is not looking to expand its security commitments,
especially in Europe. We have been protecting Europe, mostly from itself, for a
hundred years. The U.S. has grown tired of this burden, especially as most
European countries don’t pay their share for the common defense. There is no
possible universe where the United States guarantees the security of Ukraine from
future Russian attack.
So what is left?
Porcupine Ukraine.
If this sounds ridiculous, remember, it has been done before. By Finland. Finland
showed that, though it was a lot smaller than the Soviet Union, it was a very tough
nut to crack. The Soviets paid dearly in lost men and material for their invasion of
Finland. I visited a lake in Finland where a Soviet convoy was caught crossing the
ice by Finnish artillery. The artillery broke up the ice and sent the convoy to the
bottom. Finnish ski troops outclassed their Soviet rivals, broke them into pieces
and eliminated them.
The Soviet army lost its reputation as a capable fighting force. Hitler, watching
from Berlin, decided the Soviet army was weaker than it appeared.
Before Hitler could attack the Soviet Union, the Soviet army came back to Finland
for another try. The Soviets had learned from their failures and, though still a
lumbering beast, they were just too big for the Finns. The Finns, to save
themselves, gave up some territory and agreed to be neutral. But they did not
agree to be helpless or to de-militarize.
Thus was born the Finnish porcupine. All through the Cold War, Finland sat on
Russia’s doorstep. Not a member of NATO. Without security guarantees from
anyone, but armed to the teeth, with arguably Europe’s most capable military and
civil defense system. Ostensibly neutral, all of her military was oriented to defense
against an attack by the Soviet Union.
When the Soviet leadership looked at Finland it saw two things. First, it
remembered the ferocious fight and the cost of that first attack. The attack on
Finland had not been worth it. Second, Soviet leadership saw a small but well
armed and prepared neighbor that would be a very tough nut to crack. Finland was
outside of NATO and did not have security guarantees from any third country.
Finland was its own security guarantee.
So it must be with Ukraine.
Ukraine has already achieved the hard part over three years of combat, showing
Russia that it will ferociously defend itself from attack. Russia has paid dearly in
lost men and material. The Russian Army Navy and Air Force have lost their
reputations as effective fighting forces, thanks to superior Ukrainian tactics and the
heroism and ingenuity of its people. Putin, like Stalin before him, probably wishes
he had never attacked that smaller and weaker neighbor. Russian leaders going
forward will have a bitter memory of the past three years.
Now Ukraine must make some concessions, probably give up some territory, agree
to neutrality, just as Finland did many decades ago. Ukraine must also become a
porcupine. She could look to Finland for an example. While ostensibly being
neutral, every Ukrainian (and every Russian) would know why Ukrainian men
train for combat, why the country is armed to the teeth, why there are shelters for
almost the entire population. Even very big bears don’t attack porcupines,
especially not twice.
So how do we get there?
First, we must all get realistic about security guarantees. Let’s stop wishing for
guarantees that will not happen.
Second, President Zelensky, please mend fences with the White House. Being a
porcupine will be expensive. Ukraine will need all the help it can get.
Third, accept a peace that has bitter elements. Like Finland did. It could be worse.
