OPINION: It's time to reconsider our Ukraine strategy

In 1977, inspired by one of my professors who had escaped to West Berlin via Checkpoint Charlie after the Berlin Wall went up, I traveled behind the Iron Curtain and crossed Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin. Experiencing the stark realities of a divided city left a profound impression on me.

So, in 1987, when I watched President Ronald Reagan’s “tear down this wall” speech, it resonated deeply. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it felt personal; I still have a fragment of the Wall as a reminder.

In February 1990, during a meeting with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, Secretary of State James Baker assured Gorbachev that if the U.S. maintained a presence in a unified Germany within NATO, there would be no eastward expansion. He promised, “Not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in the eastward direction.” This sentiment was echoed by West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who also reassured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand beyond Germany. Despite these assurances, NATO’s expansion proceeded unabated, reopening a deep mistrust between Russia and the West.

Look at what unfolded: Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004. Albania and Croatia in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, North Macedonia in 2020 and Finland in 2023. So much for “not an inch.”

Just as the United States once bristled at the Soviet Union placing nukes in Cuba, prompting threats of nuclear war, Vladimir Putin now rattles his own nuclear sabers as NATO encroaches on Russia’s borders. We are ignoring the echoes of history.

The Biden administration’s approval of U.S.-made long-range missiles (ATACMs) and anti-personnel mines for Ukraine reverses longstanding policy and is a reckless move that escalates the conflict with Russia. Allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory has provoked sharp responses, with Russia deploying intermediate-range ballistic missiles in retaliation. The approval of anti-personnel mines is especially devastating, as these weapons are globally condemned for their lingering danger to civilians.

Disturbingly, The New York Times reported discussions of returning nuclear weapons to Ukraine. Moreover, the U.S. is encouraging Ukraine to lower its draft age to 18, leading to the conscription and loss of even more young Ukrainian men. After nearly three years of war, why escalate now? It’s terrifying that a senile president is making moves that could start a nuclear exchange.

Rather than seeking de-escalation or peace, the Biden White House is prioritizing short-term strategies that tie Donald Trump’s hands, which is highly irresponsible given the nuclear stakes. Ukraine’s victory is far from assured, and these provocations will only strengthen Russian resolve without yielding clear strategic advantage. Introducing anti-personnel mines underscores a reactive approach — favoring optics over outcomes and jeopardizing long-term stability for fleeting political gains.

Negotiable peace between Ukraine and Russia seems increasingly unlikely as their objectives are fundamentally at odds. Both presidents Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Putin face intense domestic pressures that limit their flexibility. Zelenskyy contends with powerful right-wing factions in Ukraine, some wielding military influence and staunchly opposing any territorial concessions. Putin grapples with nationalist forces in Russia expecting him to secure and hold annexed regions.

This deadlock keeps both sides entrenched. Even if talks were possible, Zelenskyy risks severe backlash — or worse — if he cedes territory. For Putin, relinquishing annexed regions would be a humiliation, undermining his regime’s legitimacy at home. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that the Minsk Agreements, initially framed as a path to peace, were also intended to give Ukraine time to rearm and train its military. This strategic delay underscores how peace negotiations have often been used as tools to prepare for further conflict, rather than genuine efforts to resolve it.

How many more lives must be lost before a realistic solution is found? Being anti-war doesn’t make you a Putin puppet; it makes you a seeker of peace. In my view, the most viable path forward is for Trump — or any leader willing to take the helm — to negotiate terms where Putin retains the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, with a firm commitment of NATO staying out of Ukraine and Sweden. NATO’s purpose was fulfilled with the fall of the USSR and should have been dissolved then.

If we truly want to de-escalate, perhaps it’s time to dissolve NATO, or at least for the U.S. to withdraw. Instead of military posturing, we could welcome Eastern Bloc countries and Russia into the European Union, fostering economic ties and mutual prosperity. This would eliminate the NATO military threat to Russia. It’s time to navigate these treacherous waters carefully before we’re all caught in a storm we can’t weather.

Courtney served 20 years as a nuclear engineering officer aboard submarines and 15 years as a graduate school instructor. A political independent, he spends his time chasing his eight grandchildren around Moscow.