ANALYSIS:
One major question remains after the Russia-Ukraine war has been raging for nearly three years: What, exactly, does President Biden want Ukraine to achieve?
His final move of consequence, leaked anonymously to the press over the weekend, allows Ukraine to fire further into Russia with American-made weapons. This seems to follow a pattern that has frustrated Mr. Biden’s critics, foreign policy specialists and Ukraine.
Like the decisions to give Kyiv battle tanks, F-16 fighter jets, the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and other assets, allowing Ukrainian troops to use U.S. arms to hit military formations, logistical hubs and supply depots deep inside Russia will undoubtedly make a big difference. The impact could have been far more significant months or years earlier.
The White House’s painfully slow and often confusing decision-making has fueled questions about whether the central U.S. goal is to help Kyiv win the war on favorable terms or to merely fend off Russia indefinitely with no natural endgame other than to avoid an escalation that, in a worst-case scenario, could spark a nuclear exchange.
The administration’s actions have often seemed at odds with the stated policy objective that White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan articulated in May 2022, just a few months after Russia began invading Ukraine.
“We will continue to take every step we possibly can to help the Ukrainians succeed on the battlefield and to improve their position at the negotiating table,” Mr. Sulivan told CNN’s “State of the Union” program.
SEE ALSO: Russia rages against U.S. decision to expand long-range missile use in Ukraine
That goal would seem best accomplished by giving Ukraine everything it needed to take the fight to Russia and gather as much momentum as possible while inflicting maximum damage on the Kremlin’s war machine.
Some specialists said the administration’s moves were sometimes designed to achieve the opposite. Mr. Biden ruled out any American forces in the fight early on. He said Washington and its NATO allies would not be dragged into a direct war with Russia, which, along with the United States, possesses one of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals.
Denying Ukraine the assets it needed while micromanaging weapons use guaranteed that the conflict would drag on and that the larger, better-equipped Russian army would inevitably gain the upper hand.
“I’ve never seen a clear articulation that the objective is we want the Russian invasion to fail. We have the nebulous statement, ‘We’re going to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.’ For as long as it takes to do what?” said George Barros, the Russia and geospatial intelligence team lead at the Institute for the Study of War.
“Judging from the policy decisions, I can tell you for a fact that the objective was not to defeat the Russian invasion as quickly as possible,” he said in an interview. He said the administration’s fear of Russian escalation often appears to be the driving force behind crucial decisions.
“There’s always going to be risk involved in pushing back on a massive, powerful peer adversary, a nuclear adversary, like Russia or China,” he said. But “we’ve gotten to this place where any risk percentage that is greater than zero, we’re completely paralyzed and unwilling to do anything.”
The administration disputes that characterization. Officials insist that the strong U.S. backing for Ukraine has contributed to massive Russian losses on the battlefield and helped Ukraine gain a foothold in the Kursk region inside Russia. The U.S. has given Ukraine more than $60 billion in direct military assistance and other financial aid since the start of the war in February 2022.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who hoped to topple the Kyiv government within days of the invasion, is instead fighting a slow, costly war of attrition. His forces control just one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory.
Allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS to fire deeper into Russia for offensive operations could have a significant effect. ATACMS has a maximum range of 190 miles, meaning Russian vehicle hubs, storage facilities, communications sites and other critical military targets are within striking distance.
‘Failure of deterrence’
Mr. Biden’s ambivalence is set to give way to a different approach.
With President-elect Donald Trump taking office in two months, Ukraine faces a profoundly uncertain future. Mr. Trump has vowed to end the Russia-Ukraine war quickly and has said he will push for immediate cease-fire negotiations.
Some in national security circles fear that Mr. Trump could use U.S. military aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine to accept a cease-fire deal, even one that could cede Ukrainian territory to Russia. Mr. Trump has said Mr. Putin’s cease-fire proposal, which would force Ukraine to give up much of its Donetsk region to Russia, is unacceptable to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
From a public relations point of view, Mr. Biden’s decision to let Ukraine hit deeper inside Russia will allow administration officials to retroactively say they gave Ukraine everything it needed to win the war. This may allow Democrats to blame Mr. Trump if Ukraine accepts less-than-ideal peace terms with Moscow. Republican hawks say Mr. Biden’s policies, specifically the slow-walking of weapons deliveries and the restrictions on Ukraine’s use of such weapons, have impeded peace.
“President Biden continues to impose restrictions on Ukraine that prevent Ukrainians from defending themselves and prevent this conflict from ending,” Rep. Michael Turner, Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement.
“This first step will put pressure on Vladimir Putin as President-elect Trump returns to the White House and works to end this war,” said Mr. Turner, echoing the sentiment of many others who said such pressure on Mr. Putin could have been far more significant had the White House been more aggressive over the past two years.
Motivation is another question. The details remain murky, but the U.S. policy shift seems focused on allowing Ukraine to fire deeper into one of several critical theaters in the war. In the Kursk region, thousands of North Korean troops have joined Russia’s war effort and are actively fighting Ukrainian troops.
Analysts said the presence of North Korean troops demonstrates the Biden approach’s shortcomings.
“It seems to be connected to the North Korean deployment, which is a huge escalation and a huge failure of deterrence. It seems like the response is essentially a tit for tat: You deploy North Koreans in Kursk, we’ll allow the Ukrainians to use ATACMS in Kursk,” Mr. Barros said.
After years of delays and indecision, specialists say Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump can put Ukraine in the driver’s seat during peace negotiations.
“Enabling Ukraine to strike high-priority targets throughout Russia could put Kyiv in a better position for potential negotiations, including by incentivizing Moscow to agree to a moratorium on strikes on critical energy infrastructure,” said John Hardie, deputy director of the Russia program at the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.