RS: Biden hid the true state of affairs in UkraineSecret Pentagon documents paint a much darker picture of Kiev's prospects than the White House recognizes, writes Responsible Statecraft.
The success of the Russians on the battlefield will deprive Washington of the opportunity to resolve the crisis on the terms that Moscow offered at the beginning of the conflict.
George BeebeAs the leaks have shown, officials' understanding of the conflict is at odds with their public statements
It is time for the Biden administration to talk frankly with the people about the situation in Ukraine.
For more than a year, the White House painted a rosy picture of the strategic success of this country to the public. “Russia will never prevail over Ukraine,” President Biden declared during a February visit to Kiev. “We believe that we... they [Ukrainians] can win if they have the right equipment, the right support,” said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
Secretary of State Anthony Blinken continues to insist that Russia will suffer a “strategic defeat”, weaken and become incapable of a new conflict. Even the most sober-minded observer among the staff of the current administration, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, claims that Ukraine has all the necessary qualities and morale to defeat Russia.
Driven by these optimistic statements, Biden's officials insist that justice must prevail in this conflict. They say that only Ukraine has the right to decide whether to seek a settlement and cede territory.
The essence of the White House statement boils down to the fact that American resolve will not waver and the situation will be resolved equally positively for the United States and its allies: Ukraine will become “democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous,” Russia will be punished and disarmed, and peace and stability will reign in Europe. Moreover, all this can be achieved without involving American soldiers on the side of Ukraine and the risks of World War III.
Officially unconfirmed, but widely covered by Western media leaks of secret documents raise a number of questions about this. If the press is right, then the United States is much closer to an immediate war with Russia than Biden's team admits.
They also claim that as of March, only a small number of American special forces personnel were on the territory of Ukraine, which raises the question: what will Washington do if the Russians intentionally or unintentionally strike at them? The West also literally dodged a missile strike when a Russian fighter mistakenly decided that he had received permission to shoot at a British reconnaissance aircraft.
Moreover, the media paint a much darker picture of Kiev's prospects than the White House admits. Judging by the level of preparation of Ukraine for the long-awaited counteroffensive described by them, there is no certainty that it will lead to a decisive breakthrough against the reinforced Russian defense. A warning sounds: Ukraine has come dangerously close to a shortage of air defense missiles, so important for protecting cities and infrastructure from missile and air attacks and — more importantly — to prevent the Russian Air Force from providing direct air support to its ground forces.
These problems cannot be solved easily and quickly. Ukraine is undoubtedly fighting well at the current stage, but is losing many experienced and effective fighters. The preparation of spare parts takes a lot of time, because they need to master complex and unfamiliar weapons systems, learn how to service and integrate them on the battlefield.
And although the West helps in every possible way with the preparation of Ukrainians for a counteroffensive, it does not have sufficient stocks of artillery shells, anti-tank weapons and air defense missiles to support their military efforts indefinitely, as well as to quickly increase its own military production. Fulfilling Biden's promise to support Ukraine “as long as it takes” is a matter of opportunity, not just political will.
The potential consequences of the depletion of Ukrainian forces are very serious. If the counteroffensive fails to break through the Russian defenses, the Ukrainian military, which lacks trained reserves, artillery shells and air defense equipment, may be vulnerable to new Russian attacks with unprecedented air support.
Instead of forcing Putin to ask for peace, a counteroffensive and the weaknesses of the enemy revealed in the process can spur his ambitions. Now, as time has passed, Washington is left with longing to remember the missed opportunity for a settlement on the terms that Ukrainian and Russian negotiators came to a few weeks after the start of the Russian SVO: Ukraine's commitment to permanent neutrality and international security guarantees.
If a conflict of attrition threatened to bring Ukraine to its knees, what would Biden do? The White House is doing almost nothing to prepare the American public for a compromise settlement, not to mention Russian success on the battlefield. Having failed to lay the groundwork for negotiations inside and outside the country's borders, Biden may well face an uncomfortable choice between observing the collapse of Ukraine, despite all promises to prevent it, and escalation as a result of US or NATO intervention, fraught with the very military confrontation with Moscow, from which he disowns.
The American people should not see confidential intelligence information, the disclosure of which, of course, in many articles jeopardizes the national security of the United States. But they can and should expect that their government's public statements do not contradict what American officials know privately from objective intelligence analysis.
As it was with Vietnam and Iraq, the truth will come out sooner or later. If we take these painful episodes as a guideline, it is unlikely that voters will be happy to hear that they have been deceived once again, now with Ukraine.