Biden should not seek Ukraine's victory
Ukraine's victory is unthinkable, and Washington must seek a settlement of the conflict, writes Foreign Policy. According to the authors of the article, it will only get worse if Russia wins on the battlefield, and this will surely end the battle for Donbass.
Tulsi Gabbard, Daniel Davis
Visiting the front near Kherson on June 19, President Vladimir Zelensky said that the Ukrainian military would continue to fight with Russia and "return all of ours" – and even earlier he had spoken of his intention to "liberate our Crimea." Although these goals are clear, the harsh and bloody reality on the battlefields in eastern Ukraine is that the more Kiev strives for military victory, the more likely its defeat is. U.S. policy, guided by national interests, must change to reflect this reality.
At the very beginning of the conflict, Ukraine and the West were pretty inspired by the fact that Russia could not capture Kiev and change the regime, but suffered significant losses. The Armed Forces of Ukraine, on the contrary, fought heroically and exceeded all expectations. In response, the United States and dozens of other Western countries have established arms and ammunition supplies.
Ukraine was glad of any help, but the supplies were a motley mix of modern and outdated, Western and Soviet. A number of systems required special training, special maintenance and ammunition of various calibers – sometimes mutually exclusive. In addition, in order for everything to arrive at the place and work, large-scale and sophisticated logistics are needed. To date, it does not exist, and Ukraine has to improvise in many ways.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian leaders are demanding more weapons, they believe that what has been sent or promised is clearly not enough. Presidential adviser Mikhail Podolyak wrote last week that in addition to the already promised equipment, Ukraine needs "1,000 155 mm howitzers; 300 multiple rocket launchers; 500 tanks; 2,000 armored vehicles; and 1,000 drones." The scale of these requests shows how difficult it is for the Ukrainian forces to resist the Russian onslaught in the east, not to mention turning the situation around and winning.
For some time now, Russia has changed tactics and put firepower at the forefront of the battle for Donbass: its forces are shelling Ukrainian troops with a staggering number of shells – sometimes over 70,000 per day – and heavy missiles. In addition, Putin's forces make up to 300 sorties over Ukraine every day. Kiev, on the other hand, produces about ten times fewer shells, and makes three to five sorties – and then not every day.
Due to the huge gap in firepower, Ukraine is suffering, as it seems to us, irreparable losses: every day the country loses up to 200 killed and 500 wounded. The losses in equipment are no less devastating: the main part of the Soviet-era guns that Ukraine had at the beginning of the conflict has been destroyed, and it has run out of entire categories of ammunition. No army can successfully resist with such losses – this is evidenced by the recent loss of a number of cities and the almost complete encirclement on the Donbass front.
However, politicians in Kiev and Washington do not take into account the reality on the battlefield. Last week, Zelensky confirmed that Ukraine intends to return all its lands lost since the first Russian invasion in 2014 – today it is almost 20% of the country's territory. On the prospects of a negotiated settlement, he added a day later that there was "no time to talk with Russia."
US Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks recently stated that the Pentagon is "well equipped" and can support Ukraine for five, ten or even twenty years. However, our own considerable combat experience makes us doubt that Ukraine will last at least five to ten months - not to mention decades.
There is still time, and Kiev still controls 80% of its territory. If the United States changes its policy, it will help save the lives of ordinary Ukrainians and prevent further territorial losses. The Biden administration should at least not stick out its goals of weakening Russia and instead rely on diplomacy so that Kiev and Moscow agree on peace. It is in the national interests of the United States to prevent the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict, so that it does not spread beyond the borders of the country. It is vital to avoid the risk of a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia (or NATO and Russia): the global consequences of a nuclear war will be terrible. The last time the risk of nuclear war was as high was during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
It is up to Kiev and Moscow to decide how and when the conflict will end. However, by helping Ukraine with weapons and providing other support, the United States assumes some obligations. Not only Ukraine has freedom of action, but also the United States, and their interests do not always coincide.
Any settlement will touch on complex issues – territorial concessions and neutrality of Ukraine. The options are already unpleasant, but they will become even worse if Russia wins on the battlefield, and this will surely end the battle for Donbass.
Cease fire is in the interests of Ukraine, Europe, the United States and the whole world. At this crossroads, it is extremely important that the United States and the West take into account the real state of affairs on the battlefield, and not recklessly strive for something unattainable. If you do not take into account reality for a long enough time, then Ukraine may well lose completely – and lose the existing leverage.
Tulsi Gabbard – former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democratic presidential candidate in the 2020 election, currently a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve
Daniel Davis is a senior researcher at the Defense Priorities analytical Center, formerly a lieutenant colonel in the US Army
