Unfortunately, giving Ukraine aid is fraught with difficulty and potholes. It is not as simple as sending money, guns and soldiers into Kyiv and relieving them of their Russian invaders like the end of a World War Two film. Tom Hanks isn’t going to look across the bridge as the air force flies over him, fatally wounded but content that he saw his mission through.

Like the entire Russian-Ukrainian war so far, the way in which the “West” can help Ukraine will be slow, frustrating, and full of doubts. But, there can’t be any other way.

As alluded to above, there are a few suggested tools to help Ukraine and hinder Russia. I will explore a simple list, and briefly analyse their pitfalls. As a disclaimer: I do not have fifty years of foreign affairs experience behind me, unfortunately. These are my own views, might well be wrong in places, and may well be disagreed with. But they will be, at least, realistic and cautious, which is what is required in war.

Direct Military Aid

FIrst and foremost, there is the question of NATO and the “West” getting involved militarily. This could happen in two (or three) ways: through foreign military deployment into Ukraine, or through the establishment of a No-Fly Zone.

If the “West” were to directly deploy troops to fight against Russia, it could either be done overtly or covertly, loudly or quietly. Either there would be a declaration of military assistance for Zelenskyy to help againt Putin, and soldiers would be properly flown into the country to help fight back against the invasion… or, they just wouldn’t announce it, and would enter quietly. There might be some speculation that this has already happened, through Ukraine’s “Foreign Militia” actions, where people are travelling across continents to try and help out. However, if there was a real concerted military effort, the result is still the same, and that would be for Putin to find out that other countries are getting involved. Putin has long said that if anyone interfered with the war, “you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history”. So far, no one has wanted to call his bluff, and I think correctly. If anyone came in to officially help Ukraine, it would be to risk calling his bluff, which is a risk too great for the entire world. And if it was done covertly, it would only be a matter of time for the accusation to arise – Putin doesn’t tend to need much convincing in his paranoia. War is a game of uncertainty. You have to be able to ride the line of probability, to get the “will they, won’t they” questions right, and in this instance it is too great a cost to get wrong.

Therefore, the other suggestion is a No-Fly Zone. It sounds appealing to some, to enforce a protected area and keep Ukrainian cities from Russian bombing runs. But, unfortunately, you run into the same problem, just with extra steps. Think of war like a game of chess. First you make a move; then you watch your opponent flick through the possibilities and probabilities of their options. What are they willing to risk, or to lose, and if they can outflank or out-think you. Putin’s “consequences” line was the first move in a chess game, it sets the bar. A No-Fly Zone would be another strategic move, to bait your opponent into making a move that might be damaging for them. You are saying “you can make threats? Well, so can I”. But, ultimately, there is the ever-present issue of uncertainty, and calling the bluff. If Putin makes his move, and keeps flying over Ukraine, you have to ask the question again. Can we call his bluff, and shoot it down knowing he might go nuclear? Once again, many politicians (probably rightly) are not betting against Putin.

Soft Aid to Ukraine

Getting into softer aid is obviously a bit more nuanced. Firstly, there are a few things you can send to Ukraine in the form of aid. The main three in these situations tend to be food, guns and money. Sending food as aid here is probably going to be fairly non-problematic, because an over-abundance of produce will likely not have negative economic effects, since in a war zone like Ukraine with a strong sense of unity, I cannot imagine there is too much price gauging (although, it is worth noting that sending food aid to a country with an operating economy would massively oversaturate the market and deflate the price of produce, which would mean farmers make less money, and could not afford food elsewhere, leading to an actual famine – it is not the universal good it seems to be!)

The “West” has been all too happy to send military equipment to Ukraine, though. This is not an inherently bad idea: Russia has a more advanced military, and more troops, so Ukraine can use more weapons to arm more civilians-turned-soldiers. It is also very hard to make weapons in for yourselves, if your factories and workshops are being bombed while you do it. America especially has been eager to aid Ukraine with weapons and hardware, unsurprisingly. It plays a fine line between the US, Ukraine and Poland, but for now Russia is turning a blind eye to it and focusing on their own sluggish and failing attack. America wants to see Russia fail and help to that end, but without becoming an active member of the war. However, with a stream of guns and equipment flowing into Ukraine, it is worth asking the question: what is going to happen to it once the war ends? If Russia wins and occupies Ukraine, it isn’t so bad for the “West” because local resistance and insurgencies will most likely be using US-backed weapons and money to fight on, which is less of an issue for us. But, if Ukraine wins and expels Russia, then they’re just left with a glut of weapons and no owners. Not only that, but there will be high unemployment (with everyone’s work buildings being shot to bits), and a high proportion of citizens who are suddenly comfortable with weapons. There is a genuine fear, such as has happened in the Middle East, that supplying Ukraine today could be arming criminals and terrorists for the future. But, these are not useful questions to ask when you’re caught up in an ongoing war.

Sanctions on Russia

From the outside, it appears that sanctions on Russia are working, and they are our most effective tool to help Ukraine in its war, by crippling the Russian economy. Now, sanctions are not used and designed to simply destroy an economy. That is a useful side effect, but the main aim of sanctions is traditionally to turn the people against their leader. It is saying to Russian people “you can make all this stop, if you make him stop”. And pressure certainly seems to have been felt, too, with how Putin and his oligarch friends have responded internally. It puts a greater pressure on them to finish the war quickly, win or lose, because they cannot keep financing the great war machine if things continue.

But, there is a problem with sanctions, and with Putin. The Russian President appears impervious to pressure from below, meaning that no matter how much you punish his economy, and therefore his people, he will most likely still float to the top like a turd that won’t flush. And if you keep turning the screw and nothing happens, eventually you just end up causing pain for the sake of pain. How many services will sanctions take away from Russian civilians, who might not have endorsed the war in the first place anyway, without them being able to influence their leader and put an end to their own suffering through sanctions? It’s not like Putin can be voted out of office. And it feels like there is the slim chance that the “West” putting sanctions on Russian people who might not deserve it might well push them further into Putin’s arms.

Again, that is not to say that sanctions should be stopped, only targeted better. Sanctions should be attacking Putin’s rich friends, who can put pressure on him. That means seizing funds, freezing bank accounts, stopping their business practices and taking their yachts. How long before Russian oligarchs, who owe their jobs to Putin, begin to look at him and think “this man is no longer worth my loyalty”? It is the only way to really get to him, because it is how he keeps his power – through loyal friends and their state assets.

After The War

The “West”‘s greatest roel in Ukraine will not be now, but after the war, when rebuilding needs to take place (this is assuming that Ukraine sees off Russian forces). One can point to a variety of cases of post-war rebuilding, not least the Marshall Plan after World War Two, that was so effective in restoring institutions, and from the look of massively shelled cities in the country, an effort to do that again might well be needed. But, how it would be done is still not clear. Ukraine could receive a grant, which effectively would be free money or a loan that would not accrue interest. Similarly, it could be given nothing, as the “West” wash their hands clean of the country post-Putin. But, it will probably fall in the middle, in the shape of aid through a loan.

Loans are typically how aid comes around, but are not as alleviating as they might seem. With no real economy or infrastructure left in some large cities, and a massively displaced population, rebuilding Ukraine to how it once was will take a lot of time. Dropping a vast amount of money into Ukrainian hands might be necessary, but the following interest and debt burden it might make will shape the country for far longer. There might be conditions attached to any relief aid, including ones that might aggravate Russia again, wich they will have to adhere to in order to rebuild. They might be forced to sell off state assets to foreign parties to alleviate some of the debt, which will hinder them in the long term. They might purposefully dampen their economy to attract outside investment, selling their citizens out to keep money flowing. This is not to say that these will happen, but rather Ukraine will most likely never be how it was pre-war again.

Finally, there too is the issue of a country without its people. Skilled workers might’ve been killed, injured, or forced to seek refuge in another country for however long this conflict might last, be it months or years. It will certainly take years for everyone to return, but some of those who evacuated might not want to, perhaps because the grief is too great, or because they have made new lives elsewhere. This will certainly have an affect on the economy, where the country will suffer from a brain drain caused by the war. It will take far longer to fix than it ever took to dismantle.

All of this is not to discourage anyone watching the Ukrainian-Russian conflict with baited breath, but rather to encourage them to be realistic. There is no easy fix solution to the crisis, that can be thought up from the mind of an everyman. If there was, it’ve been deployed already. Instead, we simply have a wealth of tricky decisions, all balanced on the knife-edge of uncertainty, trying to choose the least-worst option.