The midterms are over. Presidential election season draws near. Now is the time for the Biden administration to move past ideals and into reality. In his speech to gathered allied partners and policymakers in Canada last weekend, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reiterated the West’s “why” for Ukraine. The “what” is less clear and the “how” uncertain. The current Ukraine policy is full of tensions and carries significant risks.
What is clear is the basis for the U.S.’s policy posture on Ukraine. The Biden administration invokes ideals in its “stand against global politics of fear and coercion.” The U.S. justifies near-unfettered funding and arming of Ukraine on the belief that Russia’s invasion carries alarming implications for the “rules-based international order.”
Russia’s brazen disregard for democracy demands, nay obligates, a U.S.-led West to join Ukraine in “the great battle for freedom,” the White House maintains. Hearkening back to the end of Soviet repression, President Biden labeled the war “a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.” U.S. officials insinuate that a failure of the United States to partner with Ukraine in its defense signals to other would-be aggressors that democracy is up for grabs and atrocities will go unpunished.
Next comes our treaty obligations with NATO partners. Russia’s invasion poses “a direct threat to European security” and a “clear challenge to our NATO allies,” Austin reminded Canadian counterparts. U.S. commitment to our European allies through NATO remains “ironclad,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in March. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and others continue to echo the United States’ “ironclad” commitment to defend “every inch of NATO territory.” The 20,000 U.S. troops currently deployed to Europe are postured to respond to Russian provocation and defend allied NATO nations.
Time and again, the administration invokes a masterful use of ideals to justify the administration’s support of Ukraine. Current policy envisions a free and whole Ukraine, defense of NATO and a weakened Russia but proposes a conflicted roadmap for achieving these ideals.
The U.S. remains Ukraine’s biggest backer by far but rebuffed a recent request by Zelensky for weapons capable of reaching Russia. To be sure, the White House walks a tightrope in its quest to avoid direct military engagement with Russia. U.S. aid apparently has its limits.
Recent remarks by Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley revealed division within the administration. “When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it,” General Milley said. Officials tried to walk back his remarks yet quietly encouraged Ukraine to signal openness to negotiations. The Biden White House has since clarified that any negotiations must be on Zelensky’s terms.
Only diplomacy can end Ukraine’s war, President Zelensky declared in May. Six months later, the U.S.-backed leader refuses to consider any peace deal in which Ukraine loses an inch of territory. U.S. policy seems stuck in a gray area, where a half-hearted push for diplomacy conflicts with seeming reluctance to provide what Ukraine needs to decisively end the war.
A resolute pursuit of ideals has produced a policy posture not just at tension with itself but one replete with risk. The outbound flow of security assistance to Ukraine prolongs the war and heightens the possibility for wider U.S. entanglement. Panic caused by a wayward Ukrainian missile that killed two in Poland last week proves just how fast a war could land on America’s doorstep. Spillover into NATO territory would necessitate further U.S. response under treaty obligations, never mind the real likelihood of nuclear war. A single miscalculation carries catastrophic implications.
As Ukraine wraps up its ninth month of war, Biden’s continued partnership with Zelensky also risks the loss of popular support at home. The president encountered division within his own party last month when a group of progressive Democrats penned a letter pushing the administration to pursue a diplomatic end to the war. Lawmakers cited both the economic and human impacts of a protracted war. While its signatories withdrew the letter, the damage was already done and a political rift exposed.
Recent polling so far shows a majority of Americans support Ukraine reclaiming territory even through a prolonged conflict. The Biden White House should anticipate Americans’ support could temper against the backdrop of a looming recession. An additional $38 billion, if approved, pushes total appropriations over $100 billion in less than a year, even as Americans face near historic inflation.
Prolonging the conflict risks more costly entanglement from which we cannot retreat in terms of American lives and even more American dollars. President Biden must clarify his current posture toward Ukraine and outline a coherent strategy to attain it. Ideals make for rallying talking points. They just don’t always define reality.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Putin Planned Attack on Japanese Islands Months Before He Invaded Ukraine: FSB Source >>
I have a plan, how about we
Negotiate for a peace plan before the world gets into a nuclear war. Why isn’t that a no brainer for the lunatics in the White House and their RINO friends?
OK GOP whats the Master PLan for Ukraine??
The strategy for Zelenskyy should be the same strategy used on Ngô Đình Diệm, the president of South Vietnam in 1963.
memo to you, ms Blakemore, TIME TO GET OUT OF UKRAINE
Clarifying the US strategy in Ukraine would required there was a strategy to clarify.