What happens if Russia defeats Ukraine?

Republicans and some Democrats in Congress are refusing to back the Biden administration’s request for military aid to Ukraine. It’s time to consider the likely consequences of the failure of that aid to arrive.

If Ukraine’s military is defeated by Russia, two things will happen. The first will be a long guerilla partisan campaign, prompted by the ethnic cleansing and genocide Russia has already begun against Ukrainians. The second will be an exodus of Ukrainians from Ukraine to Europe and the U.S.

Preparations for the partisan campaign have been long and thorough — decades long, in some places. The outcome of that guerilla war would depend on how quickly Russia grants Ukraine independence. Russia may survive if it frees Ukraine sooner rather than later, or it could — as Imperial Russia did in the 20th century — overextend and collapse over the course of years or decades.

The second consequence of Ukrainian defeat is (or ought to be) of far greater concern to European and American politicians: the prospect of between 3 and 22 million Ukrainian refugees resettling in Europe and the U.S.

The lowest estimate involves Ukraine ceding the territory Russia claims to own, the four oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson. Millions have already fled the first two and hundreds of thousands more left those parts of the second two occupied by Russia. These refugees are already in Europe and the U.S., though at present that is temporary. Millions more are likely to follow from those four oblasts if Ukraine is compelled to give up land. Living under Russian rule is no longer feasible for many who have fought and struggled against Russia for independence.

But it is just as likely that Putin — emboldened by U.S. and European refusal to deliver more aid to Ukraine, and in possession of the four oblasts Russia has already formally annexed — simply continues the war, attempting to take Kharkiv, Kyiv and Odesa at a minimum, and the entire country at a maximum.

In such a case, about 3.75 million new refugees would likely be created, in addition to the aforementioned 3 million fleeing the four lost oblasts. This includes those people unable or unwilling to stay in Ukraine owing to their service in the military, government, civil society, volunteer organizations or journalism (about 1.5 million) and their extended families (a further 2.25 million). Staying in Ukraine will mean facing prison at the very least, torture and — in many cases — death. Many other Ukrainians will also choose exile over subjugation to a now-hated enemy.

The upper estimate (around 22 million) reflects an unlikely but not impossible upper bound for the number of refugees. I have been to Ukraine often over the past seven years, most recently for two months earlier this year to train soldiers, and I am in touch with many Ukrainians from all walks of life.

The majority of people in Ukraine — not the abstraction of those people that we call a country — believe they have no choice but to fight. My estimate of 22 million refugees assumes that about 20 percent of the country’s 28 million Kyiv-administered residents decide to stay, either out of desperation or because they were always on the fence about fighting Russia to begin with, and believe they can convince the occupiers that they aren’t part of a small and dedicated stay-behind resistance.

To accept these numbers, one needs to understand that the Ukrainian struggle for their nation and homeland is not superficial or cynical, in the way some reactionary Western politicians and Russian propagandists claim. Ukrainian outrage at invasion and ethnic cleansing is sincere.

It is also important to note that these Ukrainian refugees will be refugees in the truest sense of the term — not economic refugees, not people looking to make a new life, but people who hope someday to return to their old lives, to their homeland.

If military aid is not forthcoming, there needs to be a plan in place to accommodate these refugees.

It stands to reason that the European countries most opposed to arming Ukraine ought to accept the most refugees (the logical consequence of failing to arm Ukraine) according to the vigor with which they opposed assisting Ukraine. Hungary ought to take in the most refugees, alongside Slovakia.

The same should be true for U.S. states. Those states and districts with congressional representatives refusing to provide military aid to Ukraine should incur the greatest obligation to Ukrainian refugees. Those states that press for aid to Ukraine incur the least obligation. Actions have consequences.

Make no mistake — housing refugees permanently will be far more costly than providing Ukraine’s military with weapons and equipment. The billions of dollars in bullets and artillery platforms will pale in comparison to the financial burden of resettling a substantial portion of an entire nation. Without robust support for Ukraine until its victory, the refugee crisis will be acute.

It must be said here that Ukrainians make excellent neighbors and citizens — industrious workers, hard fighters, devout Christians and patriotic citizens. Personally, I’d be glad to welcome Ukrainians to my hometown. 6.3 million Ukrainians already live in the U.S. and Europe, waiting for Russia to withdraw its soldiers from occupation so they can return home.

Funding for U.S. military aid to Ukraine will run out by the end of the year, according to the White House. If America decides to stop assisting Ukraine’s military, causing its armed forces to be defeated and Russia to seize Ukraine, a migration crisis will ensue. Politicians who oppose military aid need to explain their plan to permanently relocate and settle the millions of Ukrainians refugees whose existence they will have helped to create.

Adrian Bonenberger is a writer, a veteran of the U.S. Army, and is married to a Ukrainian journalist. He edits and writes for Military Media.