Debate on Ukraine aid often frames conflict as an alternative between domestic American preferences and foreign aid. But this framing fundamentally misunderstood what is at stake. Ukraine is a direct investment in American national security that can prevent American troops from fighting Russian forces directly in the near future.
Moscow’s recent statements clarify this calculation. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Raibakov Declared In June that Ukraine War cannot end until NATO “exits” of Baltic states. This demand represents a dramatic growth from Russia’s previous position, focused on Ukraine’s NATO aspirations only. Now Kremlin is demanding abandonment of NATO allies who have been a treaty member since 2004.
This growth reveals Russia’s actual strategic purpose: not only stopping Ukraine’s NATO membership, but also bringing back the current commitments of the coalition. Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – are members of Purna NATO Article fiveIn which it is said that an attack on a member attacks everyone. Unlike Ukraine, any Russian aggression against these countries will legally require direct US military intervention.
Strategic arguments are clear: If Russia succeeds in Ukraine and then walks against Baltic, American soldiers will be legally bound to fight the Russian forces directly. There will be no alternative, no debate, no option.
Supporting Ukraine costs money and weapons today. Fighting Russia tomorrow will cost American life under article five. The current investment in Ukrainian defense represents the most cost -effective military expenditure in modern American history.
Critics may argue that Russia’s Baltic Demand is only a conversation strategy. But it ignores the pattern of Russian aggression installed in the last 16 years: Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine in 2022. Every time, Western leaders admitted that Moscow would be satisfied with their benefits – every time, they were wrong.
Now the difference is that Russia’s next logical goal, Baltic, cannot leave without destroying NATO. The credibility of the alliance rests on the principle that Article five means something. If NATO retreats from Baltic under Russian pressure, the alliance is wasted, and the US security guarantee loses its preventive effects worldwide.
Now there is a unique strategic opportunity. Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable flexibility and military capacity, effectively served as a force multiplier for American security interests. The Ukrainian Army is fighting that American soldiers may have to do otherwise against a Russian army that weakens with each passing month.
The option to face American policy makers is amidst stopping Russia in Ukraine or potentially fighting them in Baltic in less favorable conditions for American security.
Each dollar spent on Ukrainian defense is an investment in preventing the number of American casualties today. Every Ukrainian win weakens Russia’s ability to threaten NATO members. Every month this struggle continues, reduces the possibility that American soldiers will directly face Russian forces in the war.
The question is not whether America can support Ukraine. This is what America cannot do.
Khusanboy Kotibzonov is a political science student at the University of New York.
