In a recent development, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has put forward a plan to grant “Israel status” to Ukraine, sparking fears that the country could be drawn into a never-ending conflict. The proposal, which involves providing long-term security guarantees and continuous military support, has raised concerns about the potential escalation of the conflict and the implications it may have on global security.
The question of whether Ukraine is on the brink of becoming a Forever War was posed by David Sachs, a prominent commentator on international affairs. As tensions between the West and Russia continue to rise, with the West testing Russia’s red lines, there is a growing risk of the conflict entering the nuclear arena. The supply of main battle tanks and soon-to-be-delivered F-16 jets to Ukraine further exacerbates the situation.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been pushing for an invitation to join NATO, even threatening to boycott the upcoming major NATO summit in Vilnius in July if his demands are not met. While NATO officials have indicated that Ukraine’s full membership is not imminent, they have suggested that certain security guarantees could be provided once the war is concluded. However, these guarantees would come at the cost of a prolonged and significant commitment from Washington.
The concept of granting “Israel status” to Ukraine, as explained by Sachs, entails a long-term commitment of weapons, ammunition, and financial aid, similar to the support the United States has provided to Israel. This commitment would not be subject to the outcome of the current counteroffensive or the electoral calendar, meaning that support would continue regardless of the situation on the ground or changes in leadership.
Critics argue that this approach could lead to continued American involvement and an escalation of its role on the losing side of the conflict. Sachs highlights the danger of repeating past mistakes, where administrations lure the public into war with promises of swift victory, only to later claim that withdrawal is not an option due to the need to maintain American credibility. This pattern, he warns, echoes the experiences of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, but with the added risk of a nuclear-armed adversary potentially triggering a global conflict.