There Are Increasing Signs Biden’s Ukraine Policy Is Flirting With Collapse
From underestimating battlefield problems to political miscalculations, the White House misfires on all cylinders.
Americans, Tom Cruise included, like speed. Not only are we a nation that turned fast food into a way of life unparalleled in human history, but we like actionable results: There’s the moon overhead, so fly to it; there’s a war over there, so win it.
President Biden will soon find that his largely reactive approach to the conflagration in Ukraine is failing not only to dissolve Russia’s intransigence but is falling short of Americans’ expectations for a speedy resolution. Growing acknowledgement that the war is at a dead end strategically is the first of a number of reasons why the Biden administration is collapsing on Ukraine.
The Defense Intelligence Agency’s chief of staff, John Kirchhofer, said last week that “certainly we are at a bit of a stalemate.” He also indicated that sending Ukraine more powerful weapons such as the Himars rocket systems and cluster munitions would not necessarily tip the balance in Kyiv’s favor, or at least not anytime soon. “None of these, unfortunately, are the holy grail that Ukrainians looking for that will allow them to break through,” Mr. Kirchofer said.
That downbeat assessment dovetails with recent remarks by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley, that Ukraine’s counteroffensive will be “very very bloody” and will take a “very long” time. As the conflict grows more entrenched, Ukraine is also burning through the weaponry that Washington keeps supplying it, sans any coherent overall strategy. According to a recent report in the the New York Times, Ukraine lost about a fifth of all of its existing stocks of weapons and armor in the first days of its counteroffensive.
The losses subsequently leveled off, but that was mainly due to a slower rate of advance and a decrease in the number of Ukrainian attacks amid often unrelenting Russian artillery fire. The Dutch open-source intelligence website Oryx reports Ukraine has lost 34 of the 104 Bradley armored vehicles America has sent it so far, due to either their damage or destruction in battle.
According to a recent article in Ukrainian newspaper Strana, “Ukraine does not officially comment on the losses, but in private conversations the Ukrainian military acknowledges that they are large.” As empirical evidence of the difficulties Ukrainian fighters are facing, some soldiers have referred to their donated military equipment as “mobile coffins.” These losses are happening amid what the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month was the serious shortage of armored vehicles among the offensive units of Ukraine’s army: not enough tanks or shells to break through Russian lines.
The morass on the ground has its counterpart in the ongoing vulnerability in the skies over Ukraine. Giving American-made F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine will for a variety of reasons not necessarily be a game-changer. American defense officials recently said that conditions for the use of F-16s in Ukraine right now are “not ideal.”
The American national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “The president has given a green light and we will allow, permit, support, facilitate and in fact provide the necessary tools for Ukrainians to begin being trained on F-16s, as soon as the Europeans are prepared.” Fine, but the war started nearly a year and half ago — and a formidable air force is something that is developed over years, not weeks. Mr. Sullivan’s verbiage will be welcome in certain quarters, but it is also packed with political posturing.
Ukrainian cities such as Kharkiv and even Kyiv are still vulnerable. Drone attacks are easier to orchestrate and the absence of a credible air force is arguably one thing that is making Ukraine rely on them more — consider the latest attacks on the Crimea Bridge, attributed to Ukraine. But how many wars are won by randomly bombing commuters on bridges? It’s conflict management by video game console, as it were.
Something else the Biden White House seemingly has a hard time getting to grips with is the complexity of Russia’s military dynamics. On the one hand, photos making the rounds on Russian social media of the Wagner mercenary chief, Yevgeny Prigozhin, in his underwear are not meant to flatter, and could point to the group’s diminished role in Ukraine.
But there are other paramilitary groups in Russia. On Friday the Kremlin announced it is set to grant legal status to more than two dozen of them that are currently active in Russia. Will that ease the entry of Russian quasi-independent fighting forces with names like Convoy, Patriot, and Moran Security Group to the frontlines in Ukraine? Secretary Blinken was caught on the back foot by Mr. Prigozhin’s short-lived mutiny last month, but the cauldron of Russian mercenary mayhem is still bubbling.
Time may yet prove to be not only Ukraine’s biggest problem but also Mr. Biden’s worst enemy. His mental acuity, or lack thereof, is already an issue of growing national concern. Also, the longer he clings to the notion that throwing money at a war is the only way to bring it to a close, the fewer allies there will be upon whom he can rely. Election concerns are one thing, but on the international stage things can change fast.
The British defense secretary, Ben Wallace, will be quitting his post at the next cabinet reshuffle at London. Mr. Wallace has been the most full-throttled supporter of Ukraine in Europe. Washington has given Kyiv more money and materiel, but it has emphatically lacked Mr. Wallace’s eloquence.
The transatlantic unity on Ukraine suffered its first blow with the departure of Boris Johnson as premier — something not lost on President Zelensky, with whom Mr. Johnson had forged a close personal bond. His replacement, Rishi Sunak, is widely seen as talking the talk on Ukraine but not necessarily walking the walk — at least not as resolutely as Mr. Johnson did.
Mr. Sunak is seen as a weak leader. Mr. Biden needs at least a couple strong ones to help prosecute his own foreign policy, as scattershot as it may be. Aside from Mr. Sunak, who can he count on in Europe to help navigate what is fast becoming a Continental quagmire — President Macron?
Welcome to mission increasingly impossible, Mr. Biden.