Beating Putin on the Battlefield: The Key to Whelan and Gershkovich's Freedom

 

Decisive military defeat of Putin's forces is key to compelling Russia to release unjustly detained Americans like Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich.

In my opinion, securing the release of Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich from Russian detention fundamentally relies on achieving a decisive military defeat of Vladimir Putin's forces. I consider that robust military support for Ukraine from the Biden administration is essential in this context. From my perspective, this approach is not just about supporting Ukraine; it's about strategically weakening Putin's position. This, I believe, would compel Russia to engage in negotiations, potentially leading to the release of the detained Americans. I see this method as a pivot from traditional diplomatic efforts, involving a more assertive use of military strength as a key influencer in Russia’s decision-making process.

Regarding the specific situations of Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich, their cases exemplify the challenges inherent in negotiating with Putin’s regime. Whelan, a corporate security executive arrested in December 2018, and Gershkovich, a Wall Street Journal reporter detained in March 2023, both face charges of espionage, vehemently disputed by the United States. The refusal of Russia to accept the U.S. State Department’s substantial offer for their release in December further strengthens my belief that conventional diplomatic tactics may not suffice. This situation underscores, in my opinion, the need for a different approach, one that perhaps incorporates a more forceful and direct strategy.

Thus, I advocate for a specific course of action: the Biden administration should provide Ukraine with the necessary weaponry to effectively counter and defeat Russian forces. In my analysis, this is more than just military aid; it is a strategic maneuver aimed at significantly weakening Putin's position. By doing so, I foresee a potential shift in the geopolitical dynamics, which could force Putin to reassess his stance. I anticipate that this military setback could be a crucial factor, leading to Putin agreeing to negotiate the release of Whelan and Gershkovich. This approach, from my point of view, represents a shift from traditional diplomatic channels to a more strategically focused, military-based tactic in dealing with the current political landscape in Russia.

Note that the strategy of shifting towards a more assertive military strategy in Ukraine arises from the apparent ineffectiveness of conventional diplomatic and negotiation tactics against Putin’s regime. This conclusion is based on the observed fact that the U.S.'s significant offers have been repeatedly rejected by Russia. In my view, altering the balance of power through military means could create new dynamics, potentially more conducive to achieving the release of detained Americans like Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich. This approach suggests a strategic redirection, where military strength and positioning become key tools in diplomatic negotiations, especially in situations where traditional methods have faltered.

From my perspective, the reason this approach is likely to be successful is quite clear: Putin’s regime has shown a tendency to respond primarily to demonstrations of strength and force. This observation is grounded in the historical actions and responses of Putin's Russia on the global stage. Thus, in my estimation, a military defeat could significantly alter Putin’s willingness to engage in negotiations. The expectation here is not just any outcome, but a guaranteed one, where the shift in military power dynamics compels a change in Russia's stance on negotiation matters, especially concerning the release of detained Americans.

Expanding on this viewpoint, it is important to consider the historical context and the current geopolitical climate. In my study of Putin's Russia, it is evident that its global assertiveness often aligns with responses to strength and tactical maneuvers, rather than relying solely on diplomatic dialogue. For instance, Russia’s actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are indicative of this pattern. In these cases, military force and strategic positioning played a more decisive role than diplomatic efforts alone. This historical pattern reinforces my belief that a similar approach might be necessary to change the current stalemate regarding the detained Americans, suggesting that a more forceful military stance could be the key to unlocking negotiations with Putin’s regime.

Moreover, the current military aid from the United States to Ukraine has been a pivotal factor in Ukraine's resistance. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, as of April 2023, the United States had provided over $44 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2022. This support has included lethal aid such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems, which have been crucial in countering Russian aggression.

Additionally, public opinion and political pressures within Russia could play a role. A significant military setback could potentially weaken Putin's domestic standing, making him more susceptible to considering options he might have previously dismissed. A report by the Levada Center, an independent Russian polling agency, showed a decline in Putin's approval ratings following economic sanctions and military failures, hinting at the potential impact of military defeats on domestic politics.

Simply put, my argument holds that a military defeat of Putin's forces in Ukraine, facilitated by increased military support from the Biden administration, could lead to a strategic advantage in negotiations, potentially resulting in the release of Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich. This approach aligns my the understanding that Putin's regime is more responsive to strength and military force, an observation supported by historical and current events.