With this overly cautious decision, Biden is letting Russian President Vladimir Putin play for time and wait for a possible change in U.S. leadership and policy. Instead, Biden should allow Ukraine to regain the advantage before the November election — which could, in turn, improve his own political prospects.
In one of the most substantive parts of his Thursday news conference after the close of the summit, Biden defended his unwillingness to remove restrictions that currently prohibit Ukraine from using U.S. weapons against targets inside Russia, with narrow exceptions. He said the U.S. government was deciding “day to day” what Russian targets Ukrainian forces are allowed to strike.
“That’s the logical thing to do,” Biden said. “If [Zelensky] had the capacity to strike Moscow, strike the Kremlin, would that make sense? It wouldn’t.”
But Biden’s example is misplaced because Zelensky is not asking for permission to strike Moscow. In remarks this week at the Ronald Reagan Institute, Zelensky said Ukraine needs permission to strike Russian air bases within 500 kilometers (about 300 miles) of the Ukrainian border. Every day, Russian jets fire guided bombs into Ukrainian territory from these bases with impunity, Zelensky said. Russia has thousands of these bombs, so no amount of air-defense systems can keep up. The only way to thwart this tactic is to hit the air bases.
Zelensky also explained why Biden’s caution about escalating tensions with Russia might not be so “logical” after all. Before the latest Russian attempted offensive on Kharkiv, Biden officials worried that allowing Ukraine to strike even targets involved in that specific battle would be overly provocative and escalate the conflict. But the opposite proved true; Ukraine repelled the invasion, and the city was saved.
“Imagine how much we can achieve if all the restrictions are lifted. … We are waiting for this step,” Zelensky said. “Manage this problem, and children will live.”
Certainly, the NATO summit delivered a lot of new weaponry for Ukraine, including air-defense systems. The Washington Summit Declaration contained language promising Ukraine an “irreversible” path to NATO membership, if not a formal invitation. U.S. officials also announced this week that long awaited F-16 fighter jets will soon arrive in Ukraine. Zelensky made it clear that while he appreciates all these items, his country still does not see them as enough. For example, 10 or 20 jets cannot defend Ukrainian skies from the hundreds Russia can bring to bear, he said.
Biden’s explanation on Thursday also contradicts the argument his own officials gave when it granted Ukraine initial but limited permissions to strike targets inside Russia. At that time, national security adviser Jake Sullivan told PBS News Hour “it only makes sense” to allow Ukraine to hit back against the forces that are attacking it, regardless of which side of the border they are on.
The Biden administration’s intransigence on this issue follows a familiar pattern. The White House argues against providing Ukraine some weapon or capability, then ends up changing its mind, but only after months of public and congressional pressure. Each time, U.S. officials warn of sparking World War III — a valid concern, of course — but so far, each time, Putin’s threats have been revealed as bluffs.
What’s different this time is that Putin has good reason to think U.S. policy toward Ukraine might soon change, if former president Donald Trump wins the November election. The day before the NATO summit commenced, Putin bombed the main children’s hospital in Kyiv, part of a series of strikes that killed 43 people and injured some 200 others. This was a signal to all the NATO countries that Putin has no intention of negotiating until then, Zelensky said.
“Americans are waiting for November,” Zelensky said. “And Putin awaits November, too, killing and destroying, to be ready for whatever November might bring.”
Although it shouldn’t be his foremost consideration, Biden might also think about what the status of the Ukraine war at election time will mean for his campaign, which touts his foreign policy competence. While introducing Zelensky at the Reagan Institute event, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) previewed a legitimate criticism Republicans could have of Biden’s Ukraine policy come November. Ukrainians “don’t need hand-wringing, hesitation or second guessing. They need the tools to defend themselves, to impose costs on the aggressor, and to negotiate from a position of strength,” he said.
If next year a Trump administration does try to pressure Ukraine into negotiations with Russia, Ukraine’s hand should be as strong as possible. For that reason alone, the Biden team should now give Kyiv a longer leash to act. Lifting restrictions on Ukraine would also save lives — and make sense politically.
Biden likes to say the United States will support Ukraine for “as long it takes.” The reality, as he, Zelensky and Putin all know, is he might have only six months left with the power to keep that promise.
Read More
