OPINION:
Recently, a series of leaked classified documents from the Pentagon were posted to Telegram and Twitter, and the source of the leak was discovered as a member of the National Guard. Beyond the intention behind disclosing these classified documents, the leaked reports reveal that the U.S. and its NATO allies plan to continue down the path of military engagement with Russia as they equip Ukraine for its spring counteroffensive.
The strategy, however, remains incomplete as the Biden administration has failed to clarify what comes after this spring offensive amid the likelihood that Ukraine’s counteroffensive will not be enough to end the war. This incomplete strategy is setting the U.S. up for sending endless aid to a war that continues to escalate.
While the underlying motivations for the leak remain under investigation, alterations to the documents propagate a Russian-friendly narrative of the war effort. For example, one of the documents was altered to reduce Russia’s casualty numbers while inflating Ukraine’s casualties.
Despite these alterations, Ukraine’s losses are undoubtedly substantial. Therefore, the classified documents pertaining to U.S. and NATO efforts to transfer more weapons into Ukraine for their spring counteroffensive point to a greater problem with the strategy underpinning the spring counteroffensive — it requires prolonged involvement from the U.S.
Ukraine is experiencing substantial losses, and its resources are quickly draining. Ukraine’s armed forces have killed more than 200,000 Russian soldiers, but its efforts have cost them approximately 100,000 of their own soldiers. Furthermore, Ukraine’s air defense systems may be completely worn down by the end of May, and they are experiencing critical ammunition and manpower shortages.
Therefore, to prepare Ukraine for a counteroffensive this spring, the leaked documents detail alleged plans by the U.S. and NATO to deliver more weapons. These plans include pushing Israel and South Korea to work around their positions of neutrality by using third-party actors to deliver lethal weapons systems to Ukraine while maintaining a public show of support for negotiations.
This comes on the heels of reports in 2022 that the Biden administration asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to appear open to negotiations publicly — not to actually negotiate — but to prevent “Ukraine fatigue” and ensure the West remains committed to continuing to arm Ukraine.
The recent Pentagon leaks, therefore, highlight the Biden administration’s pattern of continuing down the path of military involvement instead of prioritizing negotiations.
This recently unveiled approach of finding ways to pour more weapons into Ukraine is the favored view in Washington among both Democrats and many Republicans. Their unified argument is that the U.S. should be giving Ukraine the tools required to win against Russia. What constitutes a “win” in Ukraine, however, is less than clear and demonstrates the dilemma of Washington’s approach for American interests.
Ukraine’s objective in this war is the complete restoration of its territory, including Crimea. The Biden administration’s approach to arm Ukraine “as long as it takes” indicates support for Ukraine’s objective, even if the recapture of Crimea requires long-range weapons. In addition, the notion of what constitutes a “win” in Ukraine is muddled by the Biden administration’s vague objective of building a democracy in Ukraine.
In light of this lack of clarity, today’s urgent question is whether Ukraine’s Western-backed spring counteroffensive will fulfill Ukraine and the Biden administration’s goals.
Russia currently controls 18% of Ukraine’s territory. If, for argument’s sake, the spring counteroffensive leads to Ukraine recapturing 5% of that territory, will the U.S. then deliver another aid package for a new counteroffensive to capture more territory?
With the war entering its second year and U.S. investments surpassing $113 billion in support to Ukraine, this question remains unanswered. This question also falls on the grim reality of Ukraine’s situation: Ukraine’s resources and manpower are waning. That nation cannot sustain a prolonged war, regardless of how many weapons the West pours into the country. The recently disclosed material from the Pentagon only served to highlight the actuality that Russia is making advances in Ukraine and is holding out for a war of attrition.
American leadership, in this context, means not singularly prioritizing all its efforts in the continual armament of Ukraine as part of its proxy war with Russia. Instead should be on establishing an American interlocutor who can deliver peace through strength via negotiations.
Negotiations are not a call for territorial compromise. Rather, it is laying the groundwork for diplomatic talks between Presidents Putin and Zelenskyy and establishing terms that are favorable to America and our ally, not our adversary. This is the endgame strategy that must come after the spring counteroffensive.
The $113 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine has undoubtedly prevented Russia from capturing the country. But now it is a question of how much more the U.S. continues down a military pathway in its proxy war with Russia. Without having a plan for what comes after the spring counteroffensive — namely, whether there will be negotiations — the U.S. may be entering an endless war and inching closer to a wider escalation with Russia.
The U.S. should lead negotiations to deliver peace through strength, not commit America to an endless war. As former President Donald Trump stated, “We need peace without delay.” This is the America First position and one that must be embraced.
• Gloria McDonald is the senior policy analyst at the America First Policy Institute in the Center for American Security.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.