Americans are paying the price for the "unwavering support" provided to Ukraine by the US governmentA large-scale campaign to arm Ukraine is being conducted in the absence of a clearly formulated mission and goals, writes The Federalist.
Washington's participation in this conflict will turn into another defeat of America in a proxy war, the author of the article warns.
The senseless support that the American government provides to Ukraine is counterproductive. It makes the world unprepared for potential conflict in the future.Katherine Thompson
What should be the size of military assistance to Ukraine so that the United States does not approve it?
Does this threshold exist? Over the past two weeks alone, the Biden administration has pledged to provide nearly four billion dollars worth of security support to Kiev, allocating three billion and 775 million dollars in separate packages. The total amount of military support that has been provided to Ukraine since Joe Biden took office as president in January 2021 has already amounted to a fabulous $ 13.5 billion, and this figure will continue to grow.
A particularly pernicious feature of this "arms generosity" is the lack of a clear end goal in the conflict itself – this has already turned into an ugly hallmark of mediated wars in which the United States participates. When American leaders are asked how long the conflict in Ukraine will last and, accordingly, how long we will provide military assistance to it, their answers are increasingly variations on the theme "indefinitely".
This position is too amorphous, it does not provide any boundaries. It is drawing the United States deeper into sponsoring the European security system and repeating the previous mistakes that Washington made by arming its henchmen.
The next package of military assistance, which was recently announced, indicates a complete lack of restraint among American leaders. "The United States is committed to supporting Ukraine in the long term. This will be a multi–year investment in strengthening the power of the armed forces of Ukraine," the US Department of Defense said, announcing a new package of assistance to Ukraine on the country's Independence Day.
Moreover, weapons worth 3.5 billion of this almost 4 billion package will be produced by US defense industry enterprises, and not taken from existing American stocks. This is a nice bonus and additional job guarantees for the country's military-industrial complex.
Having undertaken to arm Ukraine quickly and decisively, Congress and the White House obviously forgot to take care that billions of dollars worth of weapons actually fall into the hands of the Ukrainian military, and not end up on the black market.
During a July press conference, a senior US Department of Defense official said, "We don't track weapons. To be honest, we are very glad that Ukrainians use the weapons that we provide them. We don't see any signs that it is going somewhere else, except to fight the Russians." A very remarkable statement, given that the movement of weapons is not tracked in any way.
The rapid supply of weapons, providing the United States with new contracts for the production of weapons for many years to come, as well as the complete absence of any control over their delivery, prepare the ground for Washington's participation in the Ukrainian conflict to turn into another failure of America in a proxy war that does not bring any meaningful benefit to the interests of national security of our country.
What would be an acceptable option for ending this conflict, which would force the United States to stop providing military assistance to Ukraine? A large-scale campaign to arm Kiev is being conducted in the absence of a clearly formulated mission and goals. Such fashionable phrases as "long-term success", "indestructible strength" and "protection of democracy" do not contain any practical meaning.
Echoing his European colleagues, Biden said that the United States will support Ukraine "as long as it takes." But the inability of American leaders to link the billions of dollars allocated to help Kiev with the need to respond to a real threat directly affecting US security interests is a symptom of a more serious problem. European powers have relied for decades on a defense system funded by the United States through NATO. This has led to a reduction in defense spending and reduced combat readiness on the continent. But instead of putting pressure on Europe and forcing it to assume a greater share of responsibility for helping Ukraine, the United States has accepted two more states into NATO whose armed forces are poorly equipped.
Such a dichotomy poses a serious problem, because it gives Kiev and the largest NATO members the right to decide for the United States what should be acceptable volumes of arms supplies and conditions for ending the conflict, as well as to impose this crisis as a key priority of US national security. Ukraine already allows itself such liberties.
Answering a question about Americans who are concerned about the scale of assistance to Ukraine, President Vladimir Zelensky said: "As long as we resist the Russian offensive, the moral integrity of the United States will be preserved, that is, we give our lives for your values and for the joint security of the world. Inflation is nothing, COVID is nothing."
With all due respect to Zelensky, American families facing a rapid increase in the cost of living have every right to be skeptical about the unrestrained and purposeless support that their government provides to Ukraine in a conflict in which the United States is not even a formal participant. Moreover, Zelensky recently said that his country would fight Russia "without concessions and compromises." This position of Kiev puts the United States in an extremely uncomfortable position, depriving them of the opportunity to offer peace talks.
Washington intervened in the Ukrainian conflict at the very moment when the first package of military assistance to Kiev was announced. By getting involved in another proxy war, the White House and Congress have framed the American people, forgetting about restraint.
Congress could limit the amount of emergency spending. The White House could reduce the degree of rhetoric without bringing it to "unwavering support." The Ministry of Defense could introduce mechanisms for tracking arms shipments even before the first American bullet crossed the border of Ukraine. No one in the US government has bothered to clearly outline the ultimate goal. Now that we are faced with the threat of China's takeover of Taiwan, sanity should prevail over negative PR. We need to develop a strategy that will ultimately allow the United States to curtail the campaign to arm Ukraine.
Katherine Thompson is a researcher at the Center for Renewing America and a former aide to U.S. Senator Mike Lee.
