Biden Time on Ukraine?

President Biden has written a guest essay in the New York Times, ostensibly to make clear the United States’ goals in Ukraine.

My guess is this is because a lot of people are unclear just as to what American goals are. In theory it would be to just arm the Ukranians enough to eject the Russians and then all is well. Except it has started to seem like the actual American goal is to just weaken Russia as much as possible, even if that comes at the expense of a very prolonged war with many dead Ukrainians in the process.

This latter sentiment is supported by statements from the Administration that sanctions against Russia - a fairly potent weapon - would continue even if Russia withdrew from Ukraine. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, for example, said even if the invasion ended the U.S. would keep sanctions to ensure that Russia was incapable of invading again. This was followed by Secretary of State Lloyd Austin saying the U.S.’s goal is to “weaken Russia” to the point where it is incapable of invading neighbors.

This all sounds nice in theory but unfortunately the Russians remain a second-tier military power that views military strength as critical to its own security (somewhat understandable given repeated invasions from Europe.) The goals stated by Blinken and Austin are reminiscent of the U.S.’s original post-war plan for Nazi Germany, which was to completely demilitarize it and turn it into an agrarian country so that it would never again invade anyone. That plan was scrapped a few years after the war ended when the Cold War popped up and a rearmed West Germany suddenly seemed useful.

In any case, if the U.S.’s overriding goal is to weaken Russia and not to end the war, then by all appearances it would be useful for the U.S. to have the conflict drag on for years in some echo of the Soviet’s disastrous invasion of Afghanistan. The financial costs to the U.S. are minimal, relatively speaking. But there are other costs, one of which is this might destroy Ukraine in the process, the other is that it might result in nuclear war.

From stage left enters President Biden:

America’s goal is straightforward: We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.

This doesn’t actually seem that straightforward. It reminds one of what U.S. leaders say about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - we just want everyone to live in peace. Unfortunately the details matter. The key details in this conflict appear to be the status of Crimea, the eastern regions of Ukraine and Ukraine’s possible entry into NATO. Of this Biden says nothing, which is probably appropriate because at least for the first two issues that should be for the Ukrainian’s to decide.

Biden continues by saying he agrees with President Zelensky that the war can only end through diplomacy. I think by that Zelensky is saying he recognizes Ukraine is actually unlikely to achieve a total military victory over Russia, so negotiations must be had. Biden follows this by stating:

That’s why I’ve decided that we will provide the Ukrainians with more advanced rocket systems and munitions that will enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine.

The theory here is that more arms may put the Ukrainians in a better negotiation position. Perhaps so? But ultimately doesn’t this necessitate someone take the lead in pressing diplomacy? In calling for negotiations?

The United States will continue to work to strengthen Ukraine and support its efforts to achieve a negotiated end to the conflict.

It is unclear how the U.S. has done anything to help advance a negotiated end to the conflict. Indeed, in the guest essay Biden also declares his welcome for Finland and Sweden to join NATO - that is, to pledge U.S. defense of these two countries and move military capabilities onto Russia’s doorstep. This seems unwise, though perhaps that it another story.

In any case, Biden, in my view, failed to bring any clarity to the U.S. position. It would be helpful if he called for some kind of peace talks in Paris or Geneva or Istanbul. It would be helpful if he conditioned the end of western sanctions upon Russian withdrawal. It would be helpful if he asked for or pledged any kind of good faith efforts. He comes up empty on all accounts here.

Meanwhile Ukraine continues to be destroyed. The U.S. continues to flood it with weapons with virtually no oversight of where they are going or who is getting them. The war has been a cash cow for U.S. defense contractors, a wet dream for neoconservatives and a catastrophe for Ukraine. The Ukrainians have fought well and have every right to resist an illegal invasion that is in of itself a war crime. But the best thing would be to find a path for peace and an end to the war.

Biden’s response has no provided any clear path forward, nor has it really contradicted the claims of his cabinet that the real aim isn’t to end the war but rather to use it in order to bleed Russia. And then what?