Wars are not fought let alone won on an installment plan. And if you only put 10 percent down, you certainly will pay a higher price later.
Yet, that is exactly what the Biden-Harris administration has been doing to Ukraine. To date, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) have only received 10% of the military aid approved by Congress in April.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
The ramifications of this inexcusable seven-month delay of getting US military aid to the battlefields of Ukraine are enormous. Not just in terms of the here and now, but also how it will adversely affect Ukraine’s capacity to go on the offensive in the Spring.
As it is, the AFU is already operating at a disadvantage due to the initial 8-month funding delay after Kevin McCarthy’s House speakership collapse in August 2023. Now, the Harris-Biden administration is compounding that damage by overseeing its own delays in getting military aid to Ukraine.
Washington’s politicization of Ukraine is literally killing AFU troops and Ukrainian civilians alike.
The initial delay resulted in Ukraine tactically withdrawing from Avdiivka last February. Now, due to the White House dawdling, the AFU was forced to also tactically withdraw from Vuhledar in eastern Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Russian forces continue to make incremental gains across the Kupiansk to Kharkiv front in the Donbas. And the Kremlin is backstopping its own losses by putting North Korean boots on the ground in Ukraine and the Kursk Oblast in Russia.
Does a ‘Warning from Kursk’ Show Reality of North Korea’s Russian Misadventure?
While the White House dithers, the AFU is bleeding a staggering number of troops, munitions and equipment. Earlier this week, in response, Oleksandr Lytvynenko, Ukraine’s national security chief, told the Verkhovna Rada – Ukraine’s parliament – that the AFU needs to draft an additional 160,000 soldiers.
Consequently, the war in Ukraine is now at an inflection point – and it is one of the Harris-Biden administration’s making. Zelensky’s frustration with the White House is very real and it is entirely warranted.
In addition to its trickle-down release of Congressional allocated military aid dollars, the White House, according to a report in the New York Times, appeared to have intentionally leaked that Zelensky had asked the US for Tomahawk missiles.
Consequently, the war in Ukraine is now at an inflection point – and it is one of the Harris-Biden administration’s making. Zelensky’s frustration with the White House is very real and it is entirely warranted.
Zelensky was justifiably incensed. His response? “And this was confidential information between Ukraine and the White House. How should we understand these messages? So, it means [that] between partners there’s nothing confidential?”
Indeed, Biden’s messaging to Ukraine is muddled. Whereas managing messaging and appeasing the Kremlin is seemingly more important to the White House.
Ukraine cannot win under the current conditions being imposed by President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Essentially, the White House has taken an IV approach to aiding Ukraine. The slow drip of military aid is enough to ensure Kyiv survives to fight another day but not nearly enough to achieve victory.
As Bob Woodward suggests throughout his latest book “War,” the White House appears far more concerned about Russia’s response to U.S. actions than any kinetic cost incurred by Ukraine or its citizens. Putin’s imaginary red lines and nuclear bluffing are all too often far too real inside of the Oval Office.
War at its core is a battle of logistics superiority – sustaining the army – and the Biden administration is in danger of ceding defeat. Now, the battlefield consequences are likely to be faster in coming. More AFU tactical withdrawals like in Avdiivka and Vuhledar loom – and the very real risks of frontline AFU positions collapsing are growing.
It is critical that Ukraine be able to go on the offensive in the Spring. Crimea remains the decisive terrain of this war – and yet the Biden administration has failed to forge a viable pathway to ensure the AFU can fight and win what would be its version of Yorktown or the Battle of the Bulge.
Biden and Harris’ failings are also spilling over into the NATO coalition itself. Zelensky is clearly concerned about the morale of the AFU – and is equally alarmed about its overall capacity to remain in the fight against Putin.
Zelensky condemned NATO’s “zero” response to North Korea’s deployment of troops to the frontlines – and he has been criticized by Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, as well as Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, its defense minister, for demanding the expedition of MiG-29 fighter jet deliveries to Ukraine.
This is how wars are lost. And it is the White House that is egregiously losing the war in Ukraine at this point.
They have left the AFU vulnerable and badly exposed. The Biden administration is hamstringing their ability to strike deep into the Russian interior with western made weapons to interdict troop formations and weapon systems, ballistic missile and drone launch sites, and ammunition storage facilities before they can be used in Ukraine.
The result? The deaths of thousands of AFU troops and civilians and the loss of valuable terrain in the Donbas region.
Now, the AFU must also contend with North Korean ground forces. But only when they enter Ukraine. Affording sanctuary to the enemy is no way to win a war. Nor is the White House fearing a decisive battle.
The incessant fear of a Russian nuclear response continues to cause escalation paralysis for the Biden administration. Woodward records a peer-to-peer conversation between the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley and Russian Gen. Valery Gerasimov early in the war.
When Gerasimov was asked under what condition Russia would use nuclear weapons, he responded, “If there’s an attack on Russia that threatens the stability of the regime – condition one. Second, if a foreign power attacks Russia with a weapon of mass destruction, that's chemical, biological or nuclear. Third, Russia reserves the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a catastrophic battlefield loss.”
Gerasimov’s third condition certainly explains Biden’s ‘just enough’ strategy and ‘weaken Russia’ approach to the war. Fear of winning outweighed the fear of losing. Enabling Ukraine to defend itself became the strategy – a war of attrition that eventually would bring both to the negotiation table was seen as the best course of action. Not for Ukraine – but for the U.S.
No one envisioned nearly three years of combat in Ukraine. No one foresaw the resolve of the Ukrainian people to defend their country, or the sheer stubbornness of Putin to lay waste to Ukraine at whatever cost necessary.
Fear of winning outweighed the fear of losing. Enabling Ukraine to defend itself became the strategy – a war of attrition that eventually would bring both to the negotiation table was seen as the best course of action. Not for Ukraine – but for the U.S.
The White House’s management of the war is failing. If this war is to be won and Putin defeated, then Biden and Harris must act now. 32 months into the war, and the White House still does not have a plan – nor seemingly are they willing to back Zelensky’s.
The White House has many retired flag officers to assist in developing a winning strategy – Gen. David Petraeus, Gen. Philip Breedlove, Adm. James George Stavridis, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges and Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.
They have the decades of experience and background to work through the critical tactical and logistical issues facing Ukraine with the Pentagon – and the battlefield knowledge to ensure that the decisive battle in Crimean gets fought and won.
Ten percent down can get you into a kinetic war. But it cannot end or win it. Nor will White House criticism and leaks. Winning wars requires 110% commitment and a determination to win. Thus far, both are woefully lacking in the Biden administration.
Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer
Copyright 2024. Jonathan E. Sweet and Mark C. Toth. All rights reserved.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the authors’ and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
