The U.S. Withdrawal Debate
An insightful article by George Beebe, published in Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative, examines why the United States—and specifically Donald Trump—should not abandon the conflict in Ukraine. More importantly, he underscores Russia’s deep concerns about Ukraine’s potential total collapse—a topic previously debated by Eve Smith on Naked Capitalism and other analysts—along with the risk of prolonged hostilities driven by European involvement.
Beebe argues that a full withdrawal of U.S. support would likely lead to Ukraine’s military collapse. However, he does not acknowledge that such a collapse will occur regardless of continued U.S. involvement, with withdrawal only accelerating the inevitable.
Russia’s Concerns Over Ukrainian Collapse
Beebe presents several key observations that align with points raised by others regarding Russia’s potential concerns about a total Ukrainian collapse.
Beebe writes:
“A Ukrainian collapse would not be entirely good news for Putin. Granted, Russia would be in a commanding battlefield position, allowing it to occupy all four Ukrainian regions it has officially annexed but not entirely conquered. Moscow could reasonably expect that Zelensky would not survive such a defeat politically, paving the way for regime change that Russia claims to want. But this would likely amount to a Pyrrhic victory. Moscow can break Ukraine, but it cannot fix it. Ukraine’s territorial expanse is too vast and its war-stricken population too anti-Russian for a military occupation beyond Ukraine’s east and south to be viable.”
He goes on to note that without a peace settlement, Ukraine’s reconstruction would be virtually impossible. Refugees would be unlikely to return, and investment in infrastructure would remain vulnerable to Russian missile strikes. A failed Ukrainian state, plagued by instability, crime, and extremism, could pose security risks even for Russia.
Is Ukraine Truly Anti-Russian?
However, the extent to which Russian officials genuinely fear such an outcome is uncertain. The assumption that a defeated Ukraine would remain uniformly anti-Russian is likely overstated. Historically, post-war sentiment often shifts toward reconciliation and rebuilding, rather than sustained hostility. It is also questionable whether the broader Ukrainian population, beyond ultranatnationalist elements, is as uniformly anti-Russian as often depicted.
A more pro-Russian government in Kyiv could emerge, potentially garnering substantial support across Ukraine, especially given the economic benefits of restored trade ties with Russia—despite territorial losses.
The Militarization of Europe
Yet Beebe’s analysis becomes more compelling when addressing Europe’s militarization in response to the conflict. He warns:
“Absent new arms control and confidence-building measures—which would be nearly impossible without a settlement in Ukraine—Europe’s rearmament would be limited only by political will and industrial capacity. Informal NATO subgroupings, such as the Nordic-Baltic axis, combine substantial military capability—albeit debatable—with deeply rooted anti-Russian sentiment. Even a heavily militarized Russian economy would struggle to defend a NATO border that has doubled in size since Finland joined the alliance.”
This scenario—an indefinite military confrontation with NATO—poses one of the greatest strategic challenges for Russia. The financial and logistical burden of maintaining a massive standing army and countering a new nuclear arms race in Europe is daunting. It underscores Moscow’s persistent efforts to engage diplomatically with the U.S., not primarily for Ukraine’s sake, but for the broader goal of securing temporary strategic stability on Russia’s western frontier. Those within Russia who push for a more aggressive military stance fundamentally misinterpret Putin’s approach.
The Long-Term Outlook
Ultimately, if Russia cannot secure a viable agreement that addresses its security concerns, it will continue pressing forward in Ukraine—potentially expanding its territorial ambitions beyond the eastern regions to central Ukraine and historically significant areas. High-ranking Russian officials, such as Andrei Kartapolov, Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, have openly acknowledged this possibility.
Beebe’s analysis provides a sobering look at the geopolitical risks of prolonged conflict. While the future of Ukraine remains uncertain, the broader implications—ranging from a fractured Ukrainian state to a revived Cold War-style nuclear escalation—underscore the urgent need for diplomatic solutions that address long-term security concerns on both sides.