The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 marked a critical point in global geopolitics. America’s strategy to deter aggressors through threats and diplomatic warnings failed to stop Vladimir Putin. This failure wasn’t just a setback; it sent a clear message to adversaries like China and Iran, who observed a hesitant West unable to uphold its commitments. The Biden administration’s approach, described as “integrated deterrence,” aimed to combine military and economic tools to discourage aggression but fell short of its intended effect.
Commentator Nick Sortor captured the frustration many feel, tweeting, “🇺🇸 is done being tolerant towards these invaders. Our politicians failed us.” This sentiment raises pressing questions: What led to this failure? And where do we go from here?
When the Biden administration rolled out its strategy, it aimed for a modern response to national security. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin touted “using every military and non-military tool in our toolbox in lockstep with allies.” The plan involved military aid, intelligence sharing, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure designed to make potential aggressors rethink their actions. But on the ground, the strategy proved ineffective.
The intelligence leading up to the invasion was clear. The U.S. predicted Moscow’s troop buildups and planned operations well in advance. Yet, these warnings didn’t deter Putin, who boldly proceeded with his plans despite American threats. President Biden warned of “severe” economic consequences in January 2022, promising a “new kind of economic statecraft” to rival military might. However, Putin calculated that the advantages gained from invading Ukraine outweighed the costs of potential sanctions.
Even Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, downplayed Western threats, stating that Moscow didn’t foresee the sanctions the West might impose. This statement reflects a troubling reality: Russia did not fear U.S. consequences, undermining the effectiveness of American deterrence.
The underlying issue wasn’t merely about communication; it stemmed from a lack of credibility. Deterrence relies on the belief that a country has the capability and resolve to act. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and prolonged, inconclusive military engagements in Iraq left American credibility in tatters. These events contributed to Putin’s calculations before his escalation in Ukraine.
America’s military strategy has evolved significantly since 9/11. Initial responses involved full-scale invasions to topple regimes. As public and elite willingness for prolonged conflict waned, the U.S. shifted towards supporting local forces. This approach, characterized by “by, with, and through,” served to minimize American casualties while empowering local troops. Yet, this limited approach has defined U.S. involvement in Ukraine, emphasizing support without direct intervention.
This conveys a crucial message: America can assist in defense but will not engage directly on behalf of its allies in confrontation with major powers like Russia and China. Such a signal carries weight, especially as China’s military maneuvers around Taiwan escalate. The Chinese military closely observes the U.S. response to Russia, calculating risks against the likelihood of a firm stand from Washington.
Historically, deterrence strategies were built on a foundation of mutual assured destruction, as articulated by economist Thomas Schelling. The principle was simple: inflict unacceptable damage to deter aggression. This was the essence behind NATO’s defense of Western Europe during the Cold War, warning that any assault would come with dire consequences.
However, today’s threats are more nuanced. Putin has intensified his nuclear threats, China is developing advanced weaponry, and Iran continues its nuclear ambitions. America’s adversaries are not swayed merely by economic sanctions but by perceived resolve and determination to respond.
Ukraine’s resistance came only after the invasion commenced. Western support helped, but the initial deterrence, designed to prevent conflict, proved ineffective. The Biden administration underestimated the psychological landscape of the Kremlin and overvalued economic pressures as a substitute for military readiness.
The consequences are stark. The war has led to an estimated 500,000 casualties and the devastating destruction of cities like Mariupol and Bakhmut. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, and NATO has positioned additional U.S. troops in Eastern Europe—not as a proactive deterrent but as reassurance after aggression has already occurred.
This failure of deterrence has profound implications for military spending and future foreign policies. Experts suggest a return to a more visibly assertive military presence, including maintaining troop bases in strategic locations, quick response readiness, and fortifying alliances. There is a consensus that America must regain credibility in its threats.
Historical precedents caution against half-measures and indecisiveness. The disastrous consequences of the 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed Hitler to violate borders, foreshadowed grave implications for global peace. Today, many feel that trust in American leadership to defend sovereignty is waning. The onus lies on those in power to shift from mere rhetoric to demonstrable strength and clarity.
The next crisis is on the horizon. Whether in Taiwan, the Baltics, or elsewhere, America’s commitment to deterrence must resonate convincingly—unambiguous and backed by a willingness to act decisively.
"*" indicates required fields
