Washington’s anti-escalation strategy has failed
New solutions are needed for Israel and Ukraine
The wars being fought by Israel and Ukraine are quite different. Where Ukraine is the smaller, weaker power in its conflict, Israel is the stronger, larger one. Where Ukraine is the one whose territory is being invaded, Israel is the one doing the invading. And where Ukraine is suffering from an absence of US military support, Israel is assured constant and unconditional aid.
Yet in both cases, Washington argues that it is striving for the same goal. In theory, that goal is to help an ally resist aggression while containing escalation and preventing either conflict from expanding.
The problem is that this anti-escalation strategy has been a complete failure. Even though the US has adopted different approaches to Ukraine and Israel, it has not managed to prevent escalation in either.
The overriding reason for this is that the approach coming from the White House is not driven by an analysis of the conflict, what different parties might do and how do dissuade them from escalating further. It is driven by fear.
In the case of Israel, it is a fear of domestic backlash. The ties between the US and Israel are so strong, especially at the elite level, that decision-makers feel that anything short of total support for all the actions of the Israeli government will be condemned by the media and large groups of voters. Whether this is actually true (and there is reason to believe US voters are more nuanced than this) is not as important as the evident reality that US politicians believe it to be true.
In the case of Ukraine, Washington’s actions are driven by fear of nuclear war. More specifically, the fear that they might be held responsible. This is why there has been a constant reluctance to provide Ukraine with entirely conventional weaponry, to fight an entirely conventional war, purely to liberate its own territory. While there is no good reason why Russia should respond to this by launching a nuclear missile (no one in Moscow values Crimea that much), the White House has been gripped by the fear that responsibility for such an unprovoked act might be pinned back on decisions in Washington.
The consequence of this irrational form of military analysis and strategy has been to deliver exactly the kind of escalation that they had hoped to avoid.
In Israel, a government emboldened to expand the conflict in order to distract from internal and external criticism decided to launch a strike against the Iranian consulate in Syria. Not only was this a violation of the laws of war, it pushed Iran to respond in order to maintain its own credibility and support among enemies of Israel. Iran duly obliged with a large-scale launch of drones and ballistic missiles against Israel, most of which were fortunately intercepted. With Iran stating that its action is ’concluded’, we are now dependent on the restraint of Tehran, of all things, to prevent a wider regional war.
Where Israel had ample supplies to defend itself and even direct intervention from Western allies, Ukraine has not been so lucky. Months and months of delays in the US on sending additional support have left Ukraine with insufficient protection. The shortage in air defence is particularly acute as Ukraine is now no longer able to properly fend off the large numbers of missiles and drones that Russia is launching almost every day. Inaction and hesitation in the US has led to a situation where Russia believes it can increase its attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure without fear of retaliation. Most recently, energy infrastructure has become the favoured target of the Russian war machine as they seek to destroy ordinary life in Ukraine. The city of Kharkiv, one of the biggest in Ukraine, is subject to constant bombardment, with the Russians seemingly intent on turning it into a new Mariupol. The US strategy so far has only succeeded in placing Ukraine in the greatest danger it has been since the start of the war, with Ukrainian civilians paying the price.
In the short term, we must hope that Washington is learning from its recent failures and will act accordingly. This must mean emergency moves to unlock substantially more aid to Ukraine by whatever means necessary. Although unlikely, such support should include direct actions by allies to take down Russian drones and missiles, as they have done for Israel. It must also mean trusting the Ukrainians when they say their only interest is to liberate their own country and not to constantly lecture Kyiv on the importance of not striking Russian territory. Forcing the Ukrainians to tie one hand behind their backs has only facilitated Russian escalation by removing any costs for Moscow. This misguided logic, driven by excessive fear, must end.
By contrast, Washington needs to take a tougher line with the Israeli government, underlining that US support is conditional on Israel staying within the laws of war and making good faith efforts to prevent regional conflict. Although the war against Hamas will inevitably put civilians in harm’s way, this cannot be used as an excuse for a disregard for human life and disproportionate civilian casualties.
Looking further ahead, the situation today only underlines the necessity for Europe to be an independent player that can act to influence these conflicts without reference to Washington officials. Consistently, Europe has been more cautious on Israel’s conflict in Gaza and more confident in supporting Ukraine’s liberation. That was the right approach. In an ideal world, this would have translated into significantly more military support for Ukraine, allowing Kyiv to defend the free parts of the country and save the lives of countless civilians. Yet years of military under-investment and a lack of joint European policy has prevented Europe from turning political positions into facts on the ground. Instead, US strategy has prevailed, not on merit, but simply by default.
The White House has proven that it cannot be trusted to manage global security alone. Preventing future mistakes will require a more autonomous and well-equipped Europe.