In the mid-1980s, I studied “Peace Research” at the University of Oslo in Norway, where the Nobel Peace Prize forum is held. One summer day, I sat with one of the school’s professors, who asked me how to contain the Soviet Union—then alive and well. 

I had just graduated from Tulane University, where my foreign affairs professor followed the teachings of George Kennan, a U.S. diplomat and historian who introduced the “policy of containment” in 1947. He argued that the Soviet Union, driven by its communist ideology, sought to expand its influence globally. However, the West could “contain” that empire through diplomatic, economic and military means without confrontation.

The University of Oslo professor appreciated that thinking but emphasized that the Soviets understood only the language of “force”—that if they tried to expand their footprint, they would be met with an equal and opposite reaction. To that end, Kennan said that the United States and its allies could respond militarily if the Soviets threatened global security. 

This discussion is not happening in the classroom but at NATO headquarters. 

“I continue to believe that the biggest risk for us, for the United Kingdom, for NATO, will be if President (Vladimir) Putin wins in Ukraine,” said Jens Stoltenberg, the outgoing head of NATO, during a radio interview. While he supports Ukraine’s ability to defend itself using long-range missiles to strike Russian targets, he said this is up to the allies supplying the weapons. 

The U.S. government is debating this issue. It is supplying Ukraine with arms, although it is apprehensive about providing long-range missiles that could hit the heart of Russian territory, dreading an escalation. Most European nations support such a defense, fearing that if Russia takes Ukraine, it will keep expanding. Ukraine has a limited supply of homemade drones that have taken out Russian power plants and oil depots close to Moscow.

The Western approach echoes Kennan's policy of containment, including sanctions and diplomatic pressures. Military support has primarily been used to fend off Russian attacks inside Ukraine. But the most hawkish say such a strategy is doomed to fail—that Russia can outlast Ukraine. Ukraine must go on the offensive and target supply lines, command centers and logistical hubs to win.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky emphasizes that striking deep inside Russia disrupts his nemesis’ game plan. By putting vital military targets in Russia at risk, Ukraine can create pressure on Moscow to rethink the price of the war. Russia is striking Ukrainian civilian and military targets, and Ukraine should be allowed to hit back, especially targeting the places used to launch those attacks.

So far, Ukraine has captured large swaths of Russian territory in the so-called Kursk region. These assaults are expected to cause significant suffering for the Russian people this winter, possibly even more than the deprivation experienced by the Ukrainian people. “This winter, the Russians will feel harder times,” said Pavel Luzin, senior fellow with the Center for European Policy Analysis. 

Ukraine’s goal is to negotiate from strength: If Russia wants its land back, it must leave Ukraine. 

John Bolton, a former U.S. national security adviser, has been vocal about his stance on Ukraine’s ability to strike targets near Moscow. He has criticized NATO and the West for forcing Ukraine to fight this war with one arm tied behind its back, arguing that the battle cannot be resolved through negotiations with the Russian government. Ukraine must fight fire with fire—the only strategy that Russia will respect. 

While communism and oppression wounded the old Soviet Union, its 10-year war in Afghanistan is what killed it. The conflict drained its finances and pride. That’s what the Ukrainians are trying to do. To prevail, they must exact a cost—to get Russia to reconsider its geopolitical aims. That means the West must give Ukraine its most modern weaponry without restrictions on how to use it—something that George Kennan and the Oslo professor could support. 

Ken  Silverstein has covered energy and the environment for years. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.