WESTFIELD — As the war between Russia and Ukraine continues to deteriorate, state Sen. John Velis sat down with a professor from Westfield State University to help Western Massachusetts residents understand the situation and how it may impact them.

Velis and Professor George Michael spoke for an hour in the March episode of Velis’ television program “Beacon Hill to the 413,” dissecting how the situation in Ukraine devolved to the point that it has. Michael is a criminal justice professor with a Ph.D. from the George Mason School of Public Policy. He once taught nuclear counter-proliferation and deterrence theory at the Air War College in Montgomery, AL.

The pair started with the central figure behind the invasion: Vladimir Putin, who grew up in the Soviet Union during the Cold War and followed through on a lifelong desire to join the KGB, the espionage and secret police agency of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). After the fall of the Soviet Union and during one of the worst economic periods in Russian history, Putin entered politics, and worked to re-centralize power in Russia to himself and his inner circle.

Part of what may motivate Putin to invade Ukraine is how culturally and ethnically intertwined the two nations are, Velis said.

He also spoke about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an organization he has personally worked with before while deployed to Afghanistan with the U.S. Army. After serving as the Western alliance opposing the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, NATO has expanded to welcome a handful of former members of the Soviet bloc, including Poland, which borders Ukraine. Many of the refugees from Ukraine are fleeing to Poland.

Under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack on Poland, or any other NATO country, would be considered an attack on all NATO countries, and theoretically trigger a united military response. Bringing the United States, Canada and the leading nations of Western Europe into the war could mean World War III, and increases the risk of nuclear weapons being used, which many believe is enough of a deterrence on its own for Russia to try to avoid the outcome.

“It is impossible to overstate how much this organization means to us,” said Velis of NATO.

Article 5 works both ways, however. Russia would likely consider aggressive actions by a single NATO state to be aggression by all, which means that the organization is resisting getting involved directly in Ukraine. Velis said that it puts the United States in a tough position of having the capacity to help Ukraine, but being unable to do so without throwing the world into war, as Ukraine is not a member.

“NATO made the decision not to have a no-fly zone for reasons I understand. We would be at war with Russia tomorrow if that happened,” said Velis.
He then asked Michael if the U.S. is doing enough in the conflict, given the limitations we must work with.

Michael said that the sanctions being imposed by the collective West on Russia should have a significant effect on Russia’s ability to fight a protracted war. Russia has a population of about 145 million people, but does not have the kind of global influence shown by countries like the U.S. or China.

Michael noted that while the situation on the ground is deteriorating quickly, Ukraine is winning the battle of the hearts and minds of the world, and that the Russian public may quickly find the cost of this war to be far too high.
Velis, tapping into his experience as a major in the U.S. Army, pointed out Russia’s widely reported logistical problems. Militaries throughout history have failed despite superiority in equipment and manpower when they overextended their supply chain. Though Russia has made gains, its armies have been slowed dramatically since the opening days of the invasion because their supply lines have reportedly fallen apart. There have also been reports of low morale among Russian troops, who often have no desire to be a part of the war.

“There have been a lot of breakdowns, reports of servicemembers surrendering, servicemembers not knowing they were going to Ukraine beforehand,” said Velis.

This invasion of Ukraine was preceded by Russia’s invasion and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine in 2014. That region was considered to be by far the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine, and posed little resistance to Russia compared to what is being seen now.

“Russia’s military, as evidenced by what we are seeing here, might not be as good or as strong as we thought,” said Velis.

Michael referenced Russia’s invasion of the country of Georgia in 2008. Though public perception for a time was that it was a decisive victory for Russia, Michael said that an after-action report by Russia itself drew the conclusion that its military performance was abysmal in that invasion. Russia’s troops are mostly draftees, and Michael said that Russia can be envious of the American all-volunteer model that has led to one of the strongest militaries in history.

“They have a conscription army and half of those conscripted don’t show up for basic training,” said Michael. “They may have the supply lines to win the battle, but to pacify the country they might not have enough boots on the ground.”

So long as NATO does not get into a shooting war with Russia, and Russia does not retreat from Ukraine, a likely outcome is a prolonged occupation of the country, similar to the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the fierce resistance by not only the Ukrainian military, but Ukrainian civilians, such an occupation would also likely result in an insurgency or resistance forming.

Michael said that it is hard to tell how such a scenario will play out. Ukraine was not a well-off country before the invasion. President Volodomir Zelensky, who has become something of an icon to the resistance against Russia, had a rather poor approval rating among Ukrainians before the invasion, and Michael said that the country had been dealing with its own issues of corruption.

Regardless, he said, most Ukrainians are likely to prefer their own government to being subjugated by Putin and Moscow.

“However he governed before, his willingness to stay and galvanize the pop[ulation] is commendable,” said Velis.

As many have likely noticed by now, the conflict is having direct impacts on our lives in the U.S. With Russia being a significant global producer of oil and natural gas, the war and resulting isolation of its economy has led to higher prices of gas and the worsening of already rising inflation across the globe.
Michael said it is also likely that the American military budget will increase noticeably after this conflict, and that NATO as an alliance sees a reinvigoration as a result of a renewed Russian threat.

As of March 14, at least 2.5 million refugees had left Ukraine since the war started. At some point, Michael said, some of those refugees may make their way to the U.S., and even Hampden County, given the high number of Ukrainian and Russian residents in the area.

In any conflict, modern conflicts especially, predicting when it will end is difficult. There are too many factors at play, including Russian strikes happening closer to Poland.

Michael said that both sides could possibly work out a treaty. Russia doesn’t have the manpower or will to pacify the country after the conventional fighting has ended, he said, and Ukraine likely wants to minimize the damage and return to something resembling normalcy.

“Both parties don’t want the war to last long,” said Michael.