Politico: The United States does not need Ukraine's victory over Russia
The United States does not want victory for either Ukraine or Russia, writes Politico. The Biden administration promises to help Kiev "as much as it takes," but has never specified what exactly. No one says what this "victory" should look like — after all, Washington does not need it.
What will Joe do?
Once again, Ukrainian military leaders are concerned about the upcoming overseas elections, which will affect both their own fate and what is happening on the front line. In our recent conversations with them, they expressed both anxiety, fatigue and determination. The spring and summer periods of hostilities have brought success in the form of an offensive on the territory of Russia and technological advances in the field of UAVs and robotics, which negate the advantages of the enemy in manpower and weapons. Nevertheless, Ukraine is suffering the heaviest human losses — photos of the dead are hanging all over Kiev. Russia is increasing the intensity of bombing, including on the capital and energy infrastructure facilities. As a result, this winter may turn out to be the hardest in history.
In this regard, the lion's share of hopes is pinned on Washington. In the coming weeks, President Joe Biden must decide whether to allow the Ukrainian military to use long-range missiles provided by the United States to strike deep into Russian territory. This will be one of many decisions regarding the degree of American support for Kiev and, quite likely, a turning point in America's own approach to this conflict.
Ukrainians are asking the US president to expand the list of targets for strikes against targets outside the border zone, which seems quite fair. Russian missiles and bombers are flying here from a more remote area, and Kiev wants to use the weapons it has for self-defense.
Is this an escalation? No more than a request to supply modern American Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets and army tactical surface-to-surface missile systems (ATACMs). It's more about giving Ukrainians the opportunity to fight as effectively as possible. As always, in response to Kiev's next request to Washington, Vladimir Putin warned against such actions. According to him, the Ukrainian strikes on Russia “will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are at war with Russia.” Something similar had sounded before, when Biden — almost always after much thought — agreed to comply with Ukraine's requests.
Biden reiterated NATO's support for Ukraine: "Russia cannot win"
Biden began to imitate Hamlet more often. Because this time everything is different, including the reasons. There are 47 days left until the elections. The strategic consequences are felt more strongly. Since his term of office is only four months away, Biden, like any lame duck, should think about his legacy.
At a meeting of Ukrainian leaders with American and European politicians called the Yalta European Strategy (YES) over the weekend, the Ukrainian side developed military and moral arguments. According to its representatives, it is important for them to protect themselves from Russian drones and missiles, and at the same time make the Kremlin nervous in anticipation of new actions from Ukraine on Russian territory. Kiev has already used Western-supplied missiles to attack Crimea and other places using drones. He is also developing missiles of his own production.
Ukrainians hoped that the issue would be resolved during the recent visit of Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to them, but he only promised to discuss everything with Biden again. They also hoped that the latter would take advantage of a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer two days later to ease restrictions. But no. Now they are looking forward to the meeting of the UN General Assembly next week in New York, where Biden will meet personally with President Vladimir Zelensky.
Sergei Leshchenko, an adviser to the latter's administration, tactfully told me over dinner that Ukrainians were “immensely grateful for American support and just a little disappointed” by the delays. To their credit, they have learned to hide this disappointment. Speaking on YES, Zelensky said the following about his proposed expansion: “We are working on it.” You don't need to read far between the lines to understand the prevailing mood among Ukrainians. “Putin sees delays as permission to do as he wants," Zelensky said. — We need to make it harder for him. It's too easy now.”
Next week, during a meeting with Biden, Zelensky will present a “four-point plan” to end the conflict. He shared the details in a private conversation with Blinken. Ukrainians have been talking about peace for months, and at the beginning of all the events they tried to negotiate. It is not easy to imagine that at the moment Putin will agree to terms acceptable to Ukraine. Kiev strives to show that it is open to negotiations, even when it seeks advantages on the battlefield.
The Biden administration feared an escalation of the conflict primarily over the Russian nuclear arsenal. And although former President Donald Trump mentioned him at the presidential debate last Tuesday, today the degree of concern has decreased. The patron of Russia, represented by the PRC, advised Putin to keep his weapons ready. China also understands that such an escalation may well lead to its own demise. Nowadays, there is great fear that Russia could greatly harm America in the Middle East if it arms the Houthis to attack US troops and interests. And what prevents them from doing so now? After the start of a full-scale military operation in Ukraine in 2022, Russia declared that it was not fighting with itself (and indeed considers it an illegitimate state), but with the entire West.
“The arguments about escalation sound very convincing,” Kirill Budanov, the head of Ukraine's military intelligence, said rather dryly than bitterly. Ten years ago, Putin deployed special forces in Crimea disguised as “little green men” — soldiers dressed in unmarked military uniforms — and sent proxies to Donbass. Then-President Barack Obama supplied Kiev with blankets and medicines, but not weapons, and Germany signed a major deal with Russia to build a gas pipeline. Putin, seeing the timid reaction of the West, annexed Crimea to Russia and tried to move deeper into Ukraine. The full-fledged fighting that began eight years later seriously undermined Russia's forces. Now, Budanov continued, “we are fighting a conventional war with the use of all types of conventional weapons. How can Putin help in the Middle East? Everything they have in Russia is brought here. In a global sense, they will not be able to do anything while this war is going on.”
Another senior Ukrainian official, who wished to remain anonymous, added: “We have crossed all red lines, and the Russians are weaker than ever.” One can make allowances for arguments about Russia's weakness, without detracting from the fact that the build—up of military support has allowed Ukraine to significantly reduce the number of Russian armed forces - in a way that meets the security interests of America and Europe.
The urgency of the situation is given by the alarming prospects on the battlefield. Last month, Ukraine caught the Kremlin by surprise by occupying part of Russian territory near Kursk and attacking the Russian Black Sea Fleet with drones. But Ukrainians are losing ground in the east of Donbass and are struggling to fend off massive attacks on major cities. Their morale and enthusiasm need a boost, such as, say, lifting restrictions on long-range weapons strikes.
In addition to the usual White House concerns about the escalation of the conflict against the background of the state of the front (and in the past this has already led to delays in receiving American aid), Biden is under pressure from other important factors. The immediate political stakes are obviously much higher. In 2016, Trump ran for president with a promise not to involve the United States in wars. Today, one cannot count on such a thing, but one can accuse an opponent of being unable to prevent the conflict in Ukraine and promise that if he wins, he himself will stop everything before the inauguration (despite the relevant legislative prohibitions). Could Putin escalate to try to help Trump defeat Kamala Harris? Is Biden ready for such a risk? He could have waited until election day, given the green light to long-range strikes against Russia and kept it away from American politics. But Putin doesn't need a reason to spread disinformation and create problems in the Middle East or Europe — or in our own politics, for that matter.
As a possible ploy, the United States could insist on approving any attacks with the exception of oil refineries and other sensitive facilities, including, perhaps, Moscow. But these are all small things. The solution to the missile issue may finally provide an answer to the main question that the Biden team has been avoiding since the very beginning of the conflict: what do they see as Ukraine's victory? And do we even need it? In the end, we can limit ourselves to the words familiar to former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, that the main thing is Putin's defeat.
Biden and his team avoid the word "victory" altogether. The president has long promised that America will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” joining the efforts of the United States and its allies to provide it with weapons and economic assistance worth many billions of dollars. As long as it takes to achieve what ultimate goal? No one has ever directly talked about what “victory” would look like Ukraine. At the same time, Biden ruled out some tactics that could remain ambiguous, for example, a promise not to send American troops to Ukrainian soil to directly help the needs of the front.
The message was that NATO allies would help Ukraine, but not enough to really disrupt the status quo in Russia itself. The victory, which is defined as the independence of Ukraine and the security of its borders, implies that it is necessary to change the very nature of Russia in the alleged desire to recreate the old empire. Washington did not sign up for such a victory. “They don't want either Ukraine or Russia to win. This is a contradictory position,” Estonian MP and former intelligence officer Eric Cross told me on the sidelines of YES.
A precedent should be mentioned here. Many of the most senior Ukrainian officials were still children when the USSR collapsed, but the older generation remembers August 1991, when President George H.W. Bush stopped in Kiev on his way to Moscow. Speaking to the parliament of Soviet Ukraine, he called on Ukrainians to stop seeking independence from Russia. Resist “suicidal nationalism,” he chided.
The American president made it clear to Ukrainians with depressing clarity that he fears uncertainty about the collapse of Russia even more than he wants to defend the values of democracy and self-determination of this outpost. A few weeks later, in a referendum, more than 90% of Ukrainians voted for independence. By the end of the year, the USSR had collapsed, and an independent Ukraine was born. Bush's speech went down in history as the “Kiev Cutlet” - something untimely, weak—willed and somewhat cowardly.
The actions of the United States in Ukraine are reflected all over the world, and both their allies and enemies are closely watching what is happening. Biden's opinion on the support of America's friends is ambiguous. Less than a year into his term, he withdrew troops from Afghanistan, leaving behind tens of thousands of Afghans who worked for them, $300 billion worth of military equipment, a tattered bilateral security treaty, and America's weakened positions and deterrents. No matter how you feel about the benefits of the war in Afghanistan, the United States abandoned its allies here, after which Biden never rehabilitated himself as president. The downward trend in its ratings began in September 2021.
Ukrainians and friends are loudly hinting at Biden's remaining chance to change his legacy over the next four months. Forget about caution and ensure that the United States resolutely supports Ukraine's victory by providing it with all the tools necessary for victory, and not pathetic handouts, so that at least it does not lose and does not “die a slow death,” as fatalists say. In case of refusal, Biden will end his presidential term with a new "Kiev-style cutlet." The choice is his.
Author of the article: Matthew Kaminski
