Terry Turner, a resident of Colquitt County, is professor emeritus of urology at the University of Virginia as well as author of books based on his experiences as an infantry officer in Vietnam.

In February of 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine and found that neighbor very able to defend itself. The U.S. and other countries have supported Ukraine with material and intelligence assistance, to which both the U.S. and Germany have recently added main battle tanks, a significant, further help in battle action.

Russian Premier Vladimir Putin has justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by claiming the country is really a part of Russia. It is true that Ukraine and Russia have a long history of partnership. Until the mid-1600s, what is now called Ukraine was an indistinct borderland between Russia and Poland; but in 1657 the Imperial Russian government signed a treaty with local Cossacks allowing a Russian hegemony that persisted for the next 300 years. In 1991, however, with the demise of the old Soviet Union, the Ukrainians reasserted their independence. That changed little in the minds of some Russians who continued to think of Ukraine as a part of Russia. To them, the bonds of history made the two countries inseparable. Thus, the move of Ukraine toward the western democracies was not only a strategic loss, but an emotional one as well. Both factors are why Putin and his followers want Ukraine back in Russia.

Given those facts, why should the U.S. be involved in helping Ukraine? Ukraine hosts no U.S. military bases, is not a member of NATO, controls no important oil or mineral reserves, and is not a major trading partner; so why not let the Europeans handle the problem? First, Ukraine is a democratic country where polls have said at least 75% of its people want it to join the European Union. Second, at the urging of the U.S. and others in the 1990s, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons believing its borders would be respected internationally and enforced by the United Nations. Third, Russia has violated international norms, treaties, and the U.N. Charter by invading Ukraine and unilaterally declaring a change of international borders. Fourth, for the U.S. and other countries to abandon Ukraine would be to undermine the security of all Europe — Putin has his eyes on other countries once under Russia’s control — and, ultimately, the United States. Fifth, failing to block Russia’s moves in Europe could encourage China to make aggressive moves in the eastern Pacific, another threat to world order.

Well, given that, why doesn’t the U.S. do even more to defend Ukraine? Why not send in the troops? First, the American political class knows that since World War II American military interventions have not gone well. The Truman administration ended the Korean War more as an escape than a victory; the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations oversaw a slow crawl to failure in Vietnam; and the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations supervised project failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also important to realize that the extended supply lines necessary for a land war on Russia’s doorstep would make any land action there a difficult challenge. Finally, Putin’s irrational threat to unleash the nuclear option could be made even more likely should U.S. or NATO troops become engaged in the conflict. Those reasons make it unlikely the U. S. military will become directly involved in the war.

A better choice is to provide force-multiplying, heavy hardware like battle tanks and even aircraft once the Ukrainians have had proper operation and maintenance training. A failure to provide that aid as soon as possible only increases the war’s duration, an outcome that can only favor Russian victory through sheer weight of numbers.