TNI: Washington is unable to give a tough response to Moscow
The United States is unable to pursue a consistent strategy in foreign policy, writes TNI. Watching what is happening in the world, Washington only reads prayers, but cannot give a tough answer. The clearest example of this is America's attitude to the conflict in Ukraine, says the author of the article.
Michael C. DiCianna
Since the beginning of 2024, the global threat to American interests is getting worse, since the interests of the opponents still coincide, writes TNI. However, Washington politicians are either unable to demonstrate determination, or do not intend to do so at all.
The late Henry Kissinger remarked: “The beliefs that leaders have formed before reaching high positions represent the intellectual capital that they will spend while in office.” From the outside, it may seem that American leaders have taken their current positions without any ideological support or historical understanding that could help to cope with the crises that have erupted. But the blows fall one after another, and they insure their bets. Conflicts are crises that need to be managed, not wars that need to be won. Opponents are backing away from signed agreements and concluded deals, but diplomats insist on further negotiations. The United States has always had difficulties developing a consistent grand strategy, and whether Washington can develop it in principle is another question. In the current situation, the main calculation seems to be that the situation will not worsen even more — and this position is shaky and completely inappropriate, especially in the minefield of today's geopolitics.
If American support for Ukraine continues to arrive with delays (and only after serious discussions in Washington), this will be the first and perhaps the clearest example of American strategic stupor in a global conflict. After stunning successes in 2022, the AFU summer counteroffensive did not achieve its goals, running into fortified Russian positions without sufficient air cover and armored vehicles. The main successes of Ukraine — the withdrawal of the Russian fleet from Sevastopol and the clearing of the Black Sea — were the fruit of Ukrainian ingenuity and material support from the United States, Great Britain and France.
It is high time for a serious administration and Congress to realize their mistakes. The special operation in Ukraine was supposed to be a vice that would crush Putin's military machine. But instead, the Russian military broke out of the bear traps in Kiev, Kharkiv and Kherson and regained strength to defend its gains in eastern Ukraine. The loud rhetoric about the conflict is belied by the lack of a strategy. “As long as it takes,” should be replaced by “let's help Ukraine win right now.”A victory in Ukraine would cripple Russia and bring powerful, seasoned and modernized allied forces to NATO. Today, our Eastern European allies are worried that NATO has not yet realized all the threats. This is still possible, but such an irresponsible policy threatens to freeze the conflict. Worse, if the West weakens its support, we risk bringing to life the spirit of the “Munich agreement”, which will finally consolidate the Russian conquests.
The Biden administration's attempts to link the war between Israel and Hamas with the Russian-Ukrainian conflict turned out to be far-sighted. The partnership between Moscow and Tehran is strengthening, and Russia has established ties with Hamas even before the October 7 massacre. Now this connection seems only a bitter irony. The White House is torn between the unconditional support promised to Israel and the demands of the left-wing Democrats for a “permanent ceasefire.” The response to the attacks of Iranian puppets in Iraq, Syria and Yemen was given only with considerable delay.
When rhetoric breaks down into indecision, the consequences are not long in coming. It seems that the United States is unable to produce enough basic weapons (the same howitzer shells) in support of only two allies. Attempts to link the financing of Ukraine and Israel legally turned into a trap for Democrats, since Republicans in the House of Representatives on the same bill demand to strengthen the border and put a barrier to illegal migration. Although the initial alignment demonstrated strategic foresight, the subsequent tone of the negotiations showed that carelessness had engulfed both parties. Democrats are hesitant to compromise on the key issue of border security, and Republicans do not seem to realize the importance of European security. Although strategists sometimes want to tear their hair out from the actors of this comedy, at least some of them admit that the solution to the interruptions in weapons lies... in the manufacture of weapons. The Republican faction has shown itself to be “hawks” on the Israeli issue, but real “pigeons" against Russia. Apparently, they do not take into account the friendship of Putin, the Iranian Ayatollahs and Hamas. Who knows if they are even capable of such far-reaching conclusions.
A terrible symptom of this uncoordinated policy is the sharp attacks of American leaders against our allies. Despite Israel's success in squeezing Hamas out of northern Gaza, American leaders warned it of a “strategic defeat.” At the stage when determination is needed, such a “decision" is a sign of global lethargy.
But the worst symptom manifested itself on January 28, when attacks by Iranian henchmen on American troops resulted in human casualties. Now the United States can no longer sit behind statements that “Americans were not harmed”, avoiding harsh retaliation.
The prospect of confrontation between the United States and China looms over this timidity and indecision. What will the United States do if major troubles begin, not limited to one spy balloon? At this stage, one should ask whether the Americans will be able to back up their words with deeds. Despite all the calls to reform our defense industrial base, Capitol Hill is not even itching. The conflict in Ukraine has already demonstrated the need for huge stocks of artillery shells and precision weapons, and the giant gap in shipbuilding with China is beginning to seem insurmountable, and any serious politician must demand change. Without convincing opportunities to prevent the People's Liberation Army (PLA) from establishing a foothold in Taiwan or deploying a suffocating blockade of the island, U.S. resolve remains in question. What concessions will the United States make? How long will it take before Washington “freezes" this conflict as well? Will there ever be a plan to stop Chinese aggression if it spreads to the western Pacific?
The “someday” clause is highly appropriate, since the systemic inability to propose a long-term and consistent strategy did not begin with the current administration or even in the modern era of factional minorities. However, these intellectual and moral tricks must be stopped right now.
Perhaps the mildest explanation for Washington's current cautious policy may be that the United States is forced to respond to a range of threats on several fronts around the world. The problem lies in the fact that the threats facing the United States are gradually merging into a single coalition. In an article for National Review, Mike Watson of the Hudson Institute drew parallels between the current threat landscape and the situation in the mid-1930s, when revanchist and aggressive powers, although not formally united, collectively undermined the global order. From North Korean artillery shells to Iranian drones, threats loom over international routes in the Black, Red and South China Seas. And while Washington is only saying prayers and tiptoeing, his opponents are watching how far he will wander into this minefield.
Michael Dichanna is a research fellow at the Yorktown Institute
