It was a routine day in the heat of southern Kuwait in 2004 during my first military deployment. I went into the Post Exchange on Camp Arifjan and found a clothes rack sporting war-themed apparel, among the basics like socks, laundry soap, greeting cards, and the like. One set of t-shirts stood out, printed with “Give war a chance” graphics. It seemed humorous at the time as a newly-minted soldier in the U.S. Army. But I have since come to recognize the moment as my first encounter with the death cult of modern American war hawks, who champion endless international fighting under the guise of moral righteousness. That memory returned in recent days through an encounter on Facebook, in which a classmate from my time at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College questioned the wisdom of my hopes that the U.S. might be able to broker an end to Russia’s immoral war in Ukraine.
For those new to the debate over this tragic conflict, I offer two facts up front. First, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should not have happened. That said, the history of humanity is replete with examples of immoral invasions between nations. Second, the Biden Administration green-lighted Russia’s actions of aggression, and America’s response has served only to escalate hostilities and increase risk of the war expanding beyond its current boundaries. As Putin massed forces at the border in 2022, I hoped that the Biden administration would make it clear that an invasion was not worth the risk. That was our opportunity to potentially prevent the current tragedy, an opportunity met with progressive weakness.
This brutal, armed conflict is now in its third full year and has killed or wounded an estimated one million people. Those are one million fellow human beings, one million fellow image bearers of the Imago Dei, a number that is larger than the entire population of some U.S. states. Roughly one-quarter of the Ukrainian population fled their homeland, and an already poor economy continues a rapid descent that will plague that region for generations to come. In a break from the 21st-century tradition of a U.S. economic model that relies on sustained conditions of warfare around the world, the Trump Administration recently began exploring options to end the Russian campaign of aggression against Ukrainians. Possibilities include potential peace negotiations and efforts to strike a mineral deal that would strengthen the Ukrainian economy and allow the country to begin repaying much of what U.S. taxpayers have spent there. Attempting to find a solution that stops the body count and allows those involved to again seek a basic semblance of good in life is morally responsible. But there are critics who demand no end to fighting until Russia is defeated. They believe a war of attrition can still successfully send the invaders into retreat and deliver an appropriate punishment to the Russian people.
The war of attrition is a long-standing strategy of armed conflict among human civilization. This method attempts to bleed a more powerful foe to the bargaining table via death by a thousand cuts in hopes of reaching a negotiated political solution. In American history, Robert E. Lee attempted to wage a defensive war of attrition following the Union victory at Gettysburg in 1863. However, the agrarian confederacy could not overcome the north’s industrial base and the larger population from which northern states could draw from to replenish the ranks. This same dynamic is in play between the larger, more industrialized Russia and the smaller, more agricultural Ukraine today—sometimes referred to as the Breadbasket of Europe.
Attrition warfare relies on an engaged and influential populace who will refuse to continue expending unlimited treasure and accepting continued large-scale casualty rates. The theory goes that an exhausted and angry public will exert overwhelming political pressure that forces heads of state to the bargaining table. This relies on a governmental system in which political rulers are accountable to the populace. But in Russia, Vladimir Putin’s control over both the political system and public perception means that this dynamic is far from universal. Even if the Russian people suffer, Putin remains insulated from the consequences, making the traditional assumption of attrition warfare largely irrelevant in this context. Whether we like it or not, Putin has a strong political hand at present, and he is no doubt familiar with the Clausewitizian maxim that war is policy by other means.
SHOCK POLL: Frank Luntz Shares the (Albeit Unscientific) Results on Zelensky Freakout–Trump Will Love It
Zelensky Did More Damage to Ukraine’s Cause Than Russia Ever Could
The U.S. has taken advantage of Russia’s latest aggression to wage proxy war by sending advisors, materiel, and $119 billion in military aid as of December of 2024, putting Ukraine among the top three countries in the world when it comes to military spending. Proxy war against a nation that is not an active enemy flies in the face of Just War Tradition. Known formally as jus ad bellum, the concept of justice in war is grounded in the principle that war should only be waged when the cause is just and the aim is to achieve peace through victory. However, the current approach of providing military aid to Ukraine without a strategy to win violates these principles and perpetuates violence that serves military contractors more than the cause of restoring peace. Justice in war demands commitment to victory. In contrast, proxy means kill wantonly. The Iranian regime murdered American troops and local civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades as a proxy foe. Is that a model of state morality to which the land of the free and home of the brave should now aspire?
Progressive political theorists claim that America’s proxy war with Russia on the fields of Ukraine is a noble fight to preserve the “international order” that emerged following the Second World War. This is an order in which America pays for the world’s defenses as poorer countries lure American jobs overseas and flood the market with cheap goods, much of which is produced through exploitive labor practices. It has allowed Americans the first-world luxury of obsessing over gender identity and intersectional theories rather than investing our lives into maintaining a well-ordered society that was hard-won and built by our brave ancestors. In observing the trajectory of Western civilization over the past 70 years, one is hard-pressed to honestly assess that the modern global order has truly been good for mankind. Rather than ending warfare, it has spread fighting far beyond the realms of land and sea combat to mass informational war and lawfare waged both internationally and domestically among our fellow citizens.
Decades of American involvement in wars overseas have desensitized Westerners and their militaries. In the U.S., we hear choruses about willingness to die for freedom. Yet when tyrants violate the freedoms of U.S. citizens on American soil, the allegedly brave roll over. “To the guns for Ukraine,” we hear… though we never see those who sport “I stand with Ukraine” iconography deploy to the fight. Those same voices remained deafeningly silent when churches were closed, as we were told “No shot-no job,” when Americans who protested on January 6th were hunted down and put into a U.S.-based gulag system, when the FBI made pre-dawn raids against peaceful Americans a routine occurrence, when peaceful pro-life advocates were imprisoned, and when rights to privacy were dismantled under the so-called Patriot Act just to name a few. Among our allies, the governments of England and Germany criminalized expression counter to party dogma, and offer safe harbor for marauding Islamic foreigners to wantonly murder in the streets. If Westerners want to fight for freedom, the battlefield is rich in our own homelands. Yet so many speak of how grand it would be to die for the “freedom” of Ukraine… from the comfort of their homes on American soil that they refuse to lift a finger to defend.
For those who retort to the imbecilic argument that I’m just another mouthpiece for Putin, know that I wore the American military uniform for 20 years and am appalled by Russian atrocities in Ukraine. But I also have not yet seen hordes of Russian military-aged men committing atrocities on American soil to justify proxy means of killing Russian soldiers at sale prices… soldiers who are not fighting against our nation. In a just world, Vladimir Putin would be driven from office and sent to the gallows. But his evil nature does not by default bequeath the character of George Washington on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. We would do well to remember that under Zelensky’s reign, churches have been closed, opposition groups outlawed, and elections halted. He would be resoundingly rejected by our founding fathers. Though I respect his refusal to flee in 2022, Zelensky is not the saint that Western war hawks portray him to be.
Unlike much of the current “Give war a chance”/Ukraine flag as social media banner mob, I went to war. It’s not pleasant. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman rightly described combat as a cruelty that cannot be refined. Thus, it is right that we should seek the option of armed conflict as a last resort—that if war must be waged, we should fully commit to overwhelming force to bring it to an end and work to expeditiously restore peace and ordered liberty. Those who insist on the necessity of a prolonged conflict to “defeat Russia” often fail to recognize the moral costs of such an approach. War should always be a last resort, and when it is waged, it should aim for an expedient resolution. Yet, in the case of Ukraine, many are advocating for a war of attrition that sacrifices human lives—on both sides—in the hope of a political outcome that seems increasingly distant.
Russia was unjustified in starting this war. The U.S. has been unjustified in merely prolonging it. If lawmakers want to argue that American interests are at stake and that destiny demands that the U.S. fight in Ukraine, let them make the case to the public and follow the constitutional rules for committing America to the fight. Otherwise, the choices are to sit this one out, or use the other instruments of national power to help negotiate a lasting peace. But waging proxy war of attrition against fellow human beings who have not lifted a finger against Americans—without a clear victory strategy—does not place us on the moral high ground.
Chase Spears served as a U.S. Army public affairs officer for 20 years, retiring as a Major (Promotable) in 2023. Chase holds a Ph.D. in leadership communication from Kansas State University, and today, he runs a leadership practice that helps people to turn brave ideas into action. You can find him on X/LinkedIn/Substack/YouTube @drchasespears.
