‘Fight Russia to the Last Ukrainian’ Is Official White House Policy
by Kyle
Anzalone | Aug
17, 2023
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has dragged on with no
end in sight. The fighting has ground to a near standstill, with thousands of
lives being traded for miles of territory. The situation has delighted the
political establishment in Washington, who see throwing hundreds of thousands
of Ukrainian soldiers into the meatgrinder as a cost-effective method for
weakening Russia.
Over the past 18 months, the White House policy has
become clear: provide Ukraine with just enough arms and money to keep Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky from negotiating with Russia.
Prior to the war and within the first two months of
the Russian invasion, Washington and Kiev had four opportunities to negotiate
with Moscow and end the war on terms that would, today, be considered favorable
to Ukraine. At each opportunity, the White House refused to engage in
meaningful diplomacy with Moscow and encouraged Kiev to follow Washington’s
lead.
Two months into the conflict, The Washington
Post frankly reported that Washington and its Western allies preferred
war instead of peace in Ukraine. “Even a Ukrainian vow not to join NATO could
be a concern to some neighbors,” the outlet reported. “That leads to an awkward
reality: For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and
dying, than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to
Kyiv and the rest of Europe.”
Joe Biden administration official
Derek Chollett, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali
Bennett, Ukrainian Pravada and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut
Cavusoglul have all independently confirmed that the White
House was a barrier to meaningful peace talks that could have prevented the war
or brought it to a swift conclusion.
In April 2022, then-UK Prime Minister Boris
Johnson traveled to Ukraine and delivered a message to Zelensky from NATO;
even if Kiev is ready to make a deal with Moscow, the West is not. At the same
time, leaders of NATO nations announced they would provide “new and heavier” arms to Kiev. That month, Washington would
approve over $1.6 billion in weapons transfers to Ukraine.
In the grueling days since talks ended in March 2022,
the West has dumped tens of billions in weapons onto the Ukrainian battlefield.
Like the NATO-trained Ukrainian conscripts, those weapons have met their fate
within days or hours of reaching the frontline.
Throughout the war, Kiev has sought long-range
missiles, advanced aircraft, and tanks, and officials in Washington have
repeated the catchphrase that Ukraine would be given all of the “weapons it needs” to win the war.
However, Washington has engaged in a gradual
escalation of arms transfers to Ukraine. The Biden administration has ensured
that Kiev has enough weapons to keep fighting and, at the same time, restrict
the arms it sends to Ukraine in an effort not to provoke a direct war with
Russia.
The influx of weapons likely helped Ukrainian forces
stop Russian advances and even recapture some territory. The West says it
supports Kiev’s stated goals, including recapturing all Ukrainian territory,
but also refuses to provide Ukrainian forces with the sophisticated arms to
recapture the Crimea peninsula.
The Joe Biden administration’s portrayal of Russian
President Vladimir Putin as the new Hitler and the claim that any Ukrainian
territorial concession would mean the destruction of the “international world
order” has placed the White House in two paradoxes it cannot escape.
The first puzzle facing the West is that Kiev says the
war can only end after it recaptures Ukraine, including Crimea. The Kremlin,
which annexed Crimea in 2014, says the peninsula is a part of Russia and will
be defended with Moscow’s full military capabilities.
So, Biden is faced with the options of provoking a
nuclear conflict with Russia over control of the Crimea peninsula or telling
Zelensky to negotiate with “Hitler” and make territorial concessions.
The second paradox is when, if ever, to talk with
Putin. In May, The New York Times reported that debate in the
White House had become amorphous and paradoxical. “The debate in Washington over potential peace talks
is amorphous and paradoxical. There are even competing arguments based on the
same hypothetical outcome,” the Times reported. “If Ukraine
makes substantial gains, that might mean it is time for talks, some officials
say—or it could mean Ukraine should put diplomacy on the back burner and keep
fighting.”
It appears the White House has decided the best option
is the status quo, let the fighting go on without allowing either side to
prevail. This has required Washington to consistently provide Kiev with
increasingly sophisticated military equipment without provoking Russia into a
direct conflict with NATO.
The ongoing counteroffensive perfectly illustrates
this point. After Kiev’s fall counteroffensive stalled after early successes
and the death toll mounted, Washington needed positive news from Ukraine and
began talking up the spring counteroffensive.
For months, Western officials publicly sold the idea
that Ukrainian forces could retake another chunk of territory. However,
Ukrainian and American officials privately acknowledged Ukraine did not have
the troops or military assets needed to defeat the fortified Russian defenses.
Still, Washington viewed a successful counteroffensive
as politically necessary to continue keeping the American public onboard with
sending billions in aid to Ukraine. So, Kiev relented to Washington’s demands
and sent hundreds of thousands of poorly trained troops into heavily mined
Russian defensive lines.
As retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis explained in a recent article, thousands of Ukrainian
troops being sent to their deaths were predictable. “Ukraine also suffers from
a chronic lack of air defense capacity, inadequate numbers of howitzers and
artillery shells, insufficient electronic warfare systems, a dearth of
missiles, and perhaps most crucial of all, barely 25 percent of the de-mining
capacity needed.” He wrote in 19FortyFive, “Thus, when Ukraine launched its
offensive across a broad front on June 5th, it should have surprised no one in
Kyiv, Washington, or Brussels that they ran into a Russian buzzsaw.”
In April 2022, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said
Washington elected to wage the proxy war to “weaken” Russia. Since, several
administration and elected officials have repeatedly asserted the war has been
a boon for America. Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
called for more aid to Ukraine, explaining how it strengthens America while
noting no Americans have died in the war.
Steven Moore, a powerful Republican politico, said he
was enlisted by the party’s leadership to convince the caucus that aid to
Ukraine was crucial. “If you’re a fiscal conservative, you know this is a great
use of taxpayer dollars. And not one single American soldier has had to die,”
Moore argued to the GOP caucus.
There is a near-universal blackout of the mounting
death toll among Ukrainian soldiers. During the battle in Bakhmut, former U.S.
soldiers fighting for Kiev said new soldiers were dying within hours of
reaching the front lines. A Ukrainian citizen recently told The
Washington Post that most soldiers from her town die within two or
three days of reaching the battlefield.
The massive losses and minimal gains have blunted
Ukrainians’ morale. Early in the war, recruitment centers overflowed. However,
Kiev is now relying on a general mobilization of nearly all men to fill its
ranks.
The conscription program created a plague of corruption, as many young men—hoping to avoid killing and being
killed in the war—paid bribes to officials for medical
waivers and illegal transportation out of the country. The corruption was so
pervasive that Zelensky elected to fire the heads of all local recruitment
centers and pressed charges against dozens of officials.
In a recent article, Micheal Vlahos observed, “Ukraine was a nation of perhaps 33 million in early
2022. Today, a quarter of that already-diminished country’s population has fled
to the European Union, and another quarter is in the now-Russian oblasts or
residing as new migrants in the Russian Federation itself. Ukraine, at 20
million, ranks somewhat bigger than the Netherlands, and somewhat smaller than
Taiwan.” He continues, “Yet in casualties-to-population terms, Ukrainian
military losses, after more than 500 days of war, are approaching those
sustained by Germany in World War I over more than 1,500 days. This is a
catastrophic attrition rate…that can break an army and a nation.”
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario