Wesley Wark is a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and an expert on national security and intelligence.
What does the future hold for Ukraine? Two scenarios stand out: a sustained insurgency and guerrilla war, after the eventual collapse of the Ukrainian army and government; and a severe humanitarian crisis across the country.
The Cold War offers important clues, and some cautionary lessons, as the West finds itself confronting such developments today.
A Ukrainian insurgency can only succeed if many conditions are met: popular support; high morale; strong leadership; safe territory for operations; arms and supplies; good intelligence on vulnerable targets and Russian counter-measures; and resilient communications networks to co-ordinate attacks and defence. A defiant Ukrainian campaign to bleed the Russian occupation would require Western support in the provision of arms, intelligence and communications. It may even require the risky insertion of covert operations-support personnel from agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service.
We know this because it was true in the early years of the Cold War. At the time, both British intelligence and the CIA supported a nascent Ukrainian resistance movement opposed to Soviet control of the country. Designed to penetrate the Soviet Union, and engage in armed resistance and “psychological warfare,” the Ukrainian operation was an abysmal failure. The resistance was small and disunited, and it never managed to command much popular support. It was thoroughly overcome by the KGB, the Soviet intelligence arm. Resistance leaders, including Stepan Bandera – who collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War – were hunted down and eventually poisoned by KGB assets. Western backing accomplished nothing other than the unnecessary sacrifice of lives.
In case this seems like ancient history, note that Russian troops in Ukraine have been telling Ukrainians that they were sent to hunt down “Banderites,” a phrase that has repeatedly cropped up in Vladimir Putin’s speeches and Russian state propaganda.
Removing Putin is the only option now
Canada and the Russians: Fifty years of hope go up in smoke
This time around, a Ukrainian insurgency has much greater chances of success, given its spirit of resistance and the hatred of Russian occupiers. Yet an insurgency is a war fought with someone else’s blood. Insurgents can become pawns in a contest whose objective might be less to ensure victory for the insurgency as opposed to damaging the occupying power. If a Ukrainian insurgency is to be supported, Western allies, including Canada, will need to be clear-eyed about its prospects and make no promises they cannot fulfill.
We can also look to another Cold War lesson in response to the mounting humanitarian disaster. International NGOs such as the Red Cross will do their best to help the people of Ukraine, but their efforts may not be enough, particularly if Russia moves to block aid from the West or if the fighting prevents the evacuation of civilians from besieged cities, leaving them to be starved into submission.
As startling as it sounds, we may need to contemplate a repeat of the Berlin airlift of 1948-1949. Western air forces, principally U.S. and British, used unarmed cargo planes to bring supplies to the inhabitants of West Berlin after supply routes were cut off by the Soviet army. The airlift plan was conceived to break a Soviet siege without getting into a shootout. The operation kept West Berlin alive and made it a symbol of resilience and a demonstration of Western resolve. The rescue mission forced the shocked Soviets to relent and reopen land and waterway supply corridors between Berlin and West Germany.
On Tuesday, the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that Kyiv has only 10 days to two weeks of supplies remaining for its population. It may come down to a choice between letting a city of nearly three million starve, or bringing them aid by military aircraft. An air bridge would require Russian acquiescence, the availability of one or more major operational airports, and the massing of military transport planes by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Possible loss of aircraft and aircrew lives would have to be taken into account, and the risks weighed accordingly.
For Canada, we would have to ask ourselves the same questions as when our air crew assisted the Royal Air Force in that West Berlin airlift seven decades ago. The Canadian Armed Forces has heavy-lift aircraft and the resources of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), an under-utilized capacity last employed in relief missions to Nepal after a devastating earthquake in 2015. It may need to be configured for a new mission.
Supporting an insurgency, and building an air bridge to Kyiv, are scenarios for a dark future. They could have serious escalatory consequences. But while they represent worst-case solutions, this is a situation that is unlikely to be resolved by anything else.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.