Democrats in Congress need to start work on authorization for the use of military force in Ukraine. This only comes about because nothing short of the threat or application of U.S. military force in Ukraine will stop the war there.
Background
Ukraine became officially independent of the Soviet Union in 1991 when the Supreme Soviet adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine.
In 1994, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdoms signed the Budapest Memorandum, which gave security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. Part of this agreement “prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine” and other former Soviet republics. Between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons by decommissioning them or transferring them to Russia.
Even so Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and supported separatist movements in eastern Ukraine. Then, in February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The obvious intent was to take over all of Ukraine and install a pro-Russian government.
Since that time, Russia has waged all-out war against Ukraine, including indiscriminate violent attacks on civilians, numerous war crimes involving massacres of civilians, torture, and rape of women and children. (See here.) Reports include forced deportation of thousands of civilians, including children. It is fair to say that Russian forces for more than two years have been raping and pillaging their way through eastern Ukraine.
In addition, the war caused an enormous refugee crisis in Europe. Reports are that around 6.5 million Ukrainians have fled the country as a result of the war. In addition, around 3.7 million people are internally displaced in Ukraine. (Figures from the UN Refugee Agency.)
One goal of the UN Charter is “armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest”. According to Article 2:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
[UN Charter]
Russia is completely out of compliance with this provision of the UN Charter, and the UN General Assembly should expel Russia until it comes into compliance.
Based on the complete illegality of the Russian invasion, armed force is warranted to stop it.
AUMF
The Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” and “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Force”. [Article I, Section 8]
Under this authority, Congress should grant the Administration the power to use U.S. military forces in Ukraine.
This doesn’t direct the President to make war on Russia. But realistically, putting U.S. armed forces in Ukraine risks that war. It is realistic to take that into account.
However, we are already at great risk of war with Russia, and Russia has committed acts of war against the U.S. The Russian interference in U.S. elections, well-documented by a bipartisan Senate committee, is an attack on U.S. sovereignty. As such, it is an act of war. Russia is well-known to use cyber attacks against the United States. We are in a cold war with Russia, and we need to acknowledge that fact.
Unless the U.S. military makes a deliberate offensive attack against Russian forces, we are not starting a war with Russia. Simply having U.S. troops in Ukraine is not an act of war against them.
An important element of any AUMF is the goals and purposes of that authorization. We should be clear about our goals.
The primary goal of this AUMF is to bring the war in Ukraine to an end.
For that to happen, Ukraine needs to reach an agreement with Russia that is suitable to both parties. That won’t be a happy outcome for Russia, obviously, but given their acts of aggression, that’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is that the outcome is suitable to Ukraine. So, we are not looking just for an end to the war. We are looking for an end that Ukraine wants.
Roughly speaking, there are three critical components to that end:
- Russia must withdraw all military forces from Ukrainian territory.
- Russia must compensate Ukraine for all damage.
- Russian leaders responsible for the war must stand trial for crimes related to it. That specifically includes the crime of aggression, for launching the war, and any war crimes committed by military forces in Ukraine.
When I say, “withdraw all military forces from Ukrainian territory” that includes all territory under the terms of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, which includes Crimea. If Russia wants to keep its bases in Crimea, they need to come to terms with Ukraine and work out a deal. Presumably, that means some kind of rental for the territory around Sevastopol or a sale of some land. It need not be all Crimea.
When I say “compensate Ukraine for all damage” that doesn’t just mean enough to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by the war. It means compensation for the death, disability, and hardship of Ukrainians killed or otherwise harmed by the war. I’m talking about full compensation.
When I say trials for war crimes, I mean all war crimes. There are credible accusations of war crimes on both sides, and this must include full accounting. However, the reports of war crimes by Russian troops far outweigh the accusations against Ukrainians.
So, these are the minimal goals I think should be an explicit part of the AUMF. Obviously, Ukraine will have its own goals, and no resolution should be imposed on Ukraine. But we need to know what our goals are in authorizing military force.
Immediate Action
There are three things the United States should do upon passing this AUMF:
- Provide appropriate humanitarian support for Ukraine.
- Provide appropriate security support for Ukraine.
- Set up a security area in western Ukraine.
Obviously, one or more of these could be started or done independent of an AUMF. But along with passing the AUMF, Congress should make sure there is funding and authorization for these.
Along with the authorization for military force, there should be authorization to provide sufficient humanitarian aid, because millions of people are in need of humanitarian assistance. UNHCR estimates 14.6 million people currently need assistance. Congress needs to allocate funds. Obviously, the U.S. can’t be responsible for every last bit of aid, but we can make an allocation along with assistance from Europe that would address this issue.
There is currently a bill on the table for military assistance to Ukraine in the amount of around $50 billion. We need to re-evaluate that amount, because I don’t think that’s adequate. Someone needs to tell me, backed by evidence, why that should be less than $100 billion.
And we should allow Ukraine to pick the weapons and ammunition they want, not offer them the pickings and choosing we think we can spare. This is a war. Let’s just win it.
The big problem with war is that there is no reasonable way to know what will happen. At any moment, there could be a huge change in the situation, leading to catastrophic defeat. It can be risky to try something in war, but it can be far riskier not to take those risks. One of the biggest mistakes of this war so far on the side of the West (meaning specifically the U.S., but even more broadly NATO and western allies) is to not get right into this and end it.
The third action I suggest is offering Ukraine security for the western part of the country. This should be a secure zone protected by NATO forces, with complete air superiority that prevents Russian missiles, drones, and aircraft from penetrating that air space. It should include NATO military forces on the ground, to prevent ground attacks.
There are multiple reasons for setting up a security zone.
The first is that it allows millions of refugees to return to Ukraine from Poland, Romania, and other western countries. Not only is this better for the refugees, because they don’t have to live in a foreign country at the grace of their hosts, but it’s better for the economies of those countries. The war is putting a financial strain on Europe to house these refugees. If they could safely return to Ukraine, it would be better for the refugees as well as the host countries.
Second, by setting up a secure area, we make it plain to Russia that it will never take over all of Ukraine. There’s no feasible way for Russia to take over this territory with it under NATO protection. By denying this strategic goal, we deny Putin’s ultimate goal. That makes the war un-winnable for Russia, putting pressure on Russia to come to terms with Ukraine.
At a practical level, this also allows Ukraine to concentrate more on the areas in the east where Russia has forces. In addition, it can make it easier to deliver war materiel to Ukraine.
I don’t think it would be hard to convince Ukraine to sign on to a secure area in western Ukraine. So, this should be a short-term goal once the AUMF is passed.
Conclusion
You can bet there will be enormous resistance to an AUMF for Ukraine. The Republican Party is adamant that Russia should get total control of Ukraine. I can imagine they would be apoplectic if a resolution for an AUMF were introduced in Congress. Let’s have a pity-party for them.
We didn’t need to be in this position. The Republican Party could have gotten behind the defense of Ukraine as far back as the first impeachment of Donald Trump, when it was obvious that he’d tried to use the Ukrainian government for political points. If Republican Senators had just ousted him at that point, it would have sent a clear message to Putin he didn’t have enough support in the U.S. to launch a full-scale invasion.
So let them whine.
I don’t have any illusion that an AUMF will pass any time soon. There’s too much opposition. But there are good reasons to begin the process now.
One reason is that it helps to inform the public why this is a critical problem we need to fix. Our national security is on the line. If we give up on Ukraine, Taiwan will be next. We will lose credibility around the world.
That’s not just bad for our national security, but it’s bad for our economy. The U.S. can rely on imports from all over the world because of our dominant military position. We control the airways and the sea lanes. We have the ability to defend our commercial interests all over the world because of our dominant military position. The economic consequences of giving up on Ukraine will be felt by consumers in this country.
The other is that it puts a lot more pressure on Russia to come to terms. Even if Ukraine doesn’t get everything it needs and deserves out of a peace settlement, it will get a lot better outcome if we make our resolve clear to Russia. Putting a AUMF on the table gives Russia one more thing to worry about, and one more reason to settle with Ukraine.
In addition, we have to defeat the Republicans on this issue. It’s vital to the country for all the reasons above. But also, defeating them on this will hurt the Republican campaigns, from the presidency on down. On the other hand, if Republicans can continue to stall on Ukrainian aid, Ukraine could collapse before the election, giving our opponents the ability to avoid the issue and get more support from Moscow. We just can’t have that.
And finally, even if we don’t ever get an actual AUMF, it still puts pressure on the Republicans to bend on aid to Ukraine. If we got nothing better than immediate passage of the current aid bill, at least we’d get that. With that, Ukraine can probably hold on until after our next election, which may be sufficient to end the war on terms favorable to them.
So, please tell your members of Congress that you’d like to see them start work on an AUMF for Ukraine right now.