Biden was accused of "dangerous confusion" in the decision to supply MLRS to Ukraine
The Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in his article that US President Joe Biden restrained the "panicked desire for peace among some European allies" who did not want a protracted conflict in Ukraine. The American leader prepared them for a long confrontation and convinced them of the need for further arms supplies to Kiev. However, geopolitics expert Francis Sempa disagrees with his colleague and believes that Biden is confused when making decisions, which threatens dangerous consequences.
"Biden's most urgent task"
According to David Ignatius, over the past week Joe Biden " took several reasonable steps, defining the goals of the West in the war in Ukraine and its borders." For example, the US president outlined his approach to the Ukrainian issue in detail in an article published in the New York Times.
"Instead of empty talk about a complete military victory over the Russian invaders, he said that the goal of the United States was peace through negotiations - and wisely formulated this goal in the words of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, that in the end this war "will end only with the help of diplomacy," The Washington Post columnist wrote.
To stop Russia's advance in eastern Ukraine, the American leader is sending Kiev a "powerful rocket-propelled artillery system known as HIMARS," which can "attack Russian targets with the destructive power of a precision airstrike." At the same time, Biden clarified that the United States supplies Ukraine with weapons not only to help on the battlefield, but also so that Kiev can achieve "the strongest possible position at the negotiating table." At the same time, he stressed that the United States "does not encourage and does not allow Ukraine to strike outside its borders."
"These reports, reinforced at briefings this week by senior administration officials, signal a change in tone in the Washington debate about the war," Ignatius said.
According to him, if after the "failures of Russia" at the beginning of the military special operation in the West they talked about "complete victory" on the battlefield, now it has become clear that the conflict in Ukraine will be longer. According to the columnist, this became especially obvious after Zelensky's recent video message to the Luxembourg parliament. The Ukrainian leader said that the front line stretched more than 1,000 kilometers, and Russia took control of about 20% of Ukraine - almost the entire Donbass.
The Washington Post columnist is sure that Biden proved himself as a "wartime leader" and "received well-deserved praise" when he mobilized allies to arm Ukraine and "stop the invasion of Russia."
"Biden's most urgent task was to contain the panicked desire for peace among some European allies who are worried about the cost of a protracted conflict. European leaders seem to have calmed down this week by imposing an embargo on Russian oil shipments by sea, while Germany has agreed to provide Ukraine with powerful air defenses and tanks," Ignatius stressed.
He believes that the Ukrainian conflict will be long and exhausting. Military historian Rick Atkinson told the columnist that he sees an analogy between the Ukrainian conflict and the US War of Independence, when the confrontation turned into an "eight-year stalemate" and the American rebels eventually won, "mainly due to the fatigue of the British and the French from intervention."
"War usually comes down to who of the belligerents shows the superiority of will. In this case, the deadlock situation will give Ukraine time to determine whether it has the will to hold out longer than the Russians until politically acceptable conditions appear. Meanwhile, we can hope that Russia will be greatly reduced as a threat and as a global player," Atkinson's words are quoted in the article.
Ignatius concluded that "Biden rightly insists that only Ukrainians who fight and die so bravely can decide how this war should end."
"Dangerous confusion"
Geopolitics expert Francis Sempa disagrees with The Washington Post columnist and is confident that Biden's decision to send HIMARS MLRS to Ukraine threatens unpredictable consequences for international security. He wrote about this in an article for the American Thinker magazine.
"It is becoming commonplace in this White House that Biden says one thing, and the next day the White House "refuses" his statements, and soon the president confirms the "retreat." If the American people think all this is confusing, then imagine what our allies and opponents think. And in the midst of a war, such confusion can be just dangerous," Sempa wrote.
As an example, he cited the statement of the American leader on May 30 that the United States was not going to "send missile systems to Ukraine that could strike Russia," thereby rejecting the request of Zelensky and other high-ranking Ukrainian officials. This statement drew immediate criticism.
The very next day, administration officials announced that the United States would supply medium-range missiles, but not long-range missiles. According to the expert, this is how the US authorities tried to simultaneously demonstrate their support for Kiev and dispel Russia's fears that Ukraine will be able to strike at its territory.
"After that, the administration published an article in the main newspapers, allegedly written by the president, in which he states: "I have decided that we will provide the Ukrainians with more advanced missile systems and ammunition that will allow them to strike more accurately at key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine." Of course, nothing prevents the Ukrainian forces armed with these missiles from striking targets on the territory of Russia," Sempa is sure.
He believes that such actions by the American authorities increase the threat of Russia using nuclear weapons.
"How all this will end, we can only guess," the expert concluded.
