.png)
President Zelenskyy has come and gone.
His top priority was to obtain Washington’s permission to use American and certain European weapons to strike military targets inside Russia – critical targets that need to be hit to stop Russian advancements and disable Russia’s ability to continue the war.
No such permission was given.
Oh, there was a lot of happy talk and, yes, a number of good things will be provided although the timing is not clear. And timing is not an insignificant issue. People are dying, children are still being abducted, civilian infrastructure destroyed, war crimes committed. Time is of the essence and has been for the full 10 years of Putin’s diabolical war.
Provided here today are two items.
First an editorial from today The Wall Street Journal calling out the Administration for its refusal to comply with a law that required it to provide Congress with the Administration’s strategy for winning this war. There has been very little coverage of this refusal to follow a demand of the law.
Many, certainly including the Friends of Ukraine Network, have been calling for the Administration to state publicly and unequivocally it strategic objective regarding Putin’s war. Finally in the supplemental funding bill earlier this year Congress included the requirement that the Administration was to provide it such a strategy within 45 days.
The 45 days have long since passed, with the Administration refusing to comply. Now, it has submitted something but classified it so the public cannot know what the strategic objective might be. So much for explaining to the nation what it needs to know about our objective in this war that is of critical concern to our national security interests.
Second, there is a report on the soon-to-be-released bipartisan report from the Congressional Helsinki Commission calling on the Administration to rethink its approach to dealing with Russia.
I recommend both and end, as usual, with a call for the Administration to do what must be done – give Ukraine permission to strike targets as it sees fit. Our figuratively tying Ukraine’s hands behind its back in the face of Russian barbarism is wrong and a terrible embarrassment.
Biden Reneges on His Ukraine Promise
He classifies a strategy document that Congress made the price of aid.
By The Editorial Board | Sept. 27, 2024 5:49 pm ET
President Biden styled himself as a stalwart supporter of Ukraine’s freedom in his valedictory at the United Nations this week, and the press agrees. But the less admirable side of the President’s Ukraine legacy is on display as the Administration refuses to level with Congress and the American public about its strategy to win the war.
As part of its Ukraine supplemental funding bill this year, Congress stipulated that the Biden Administration submit a strategy for U.S. aid, due within 45 days. The Administration has been notorious for dragging its feet on specific weapons or failing to offer systems in the quantities required for Ukraine to retake its territory from Russia. The Biden Team has hid behind platitudes such as supporting Ukraine “as long as it takes,” which isn’t a strategy. It long ago became a rhetorical evasion.
The White House said Thursday the U.S. would offer Kyiv an additional Patriot air defense battery; munitions known as Joint Standoff Weapons; and open up 18 more training slots for Ukrainian F-16 pilots. All these are worthy and long overdue.
But Republicans in Congress are right to insist that the Administration articulate a larger theory of how Ukraine can use the assistance to regain momentum and take more territory back from Mr. Putin. The stagnation on the battlefield has produced public skepticism in the U.S. that jeopardizes continuing American support no matter who wins the presidential race, even though American voters don’t want Mr. Putin to prevail. But Mr. Biden isn’t filling in the blanks.
So whatever happened to that strategy demanded by Congress? Mr. Biden knew this commitment was necessary to get aid through Congress, and he signed the bill.
Yet the Administration submitted the document “months after the congressionally-mandated deadline,” says a statement this week from a group of House Republicans, including pro-Ukraine Reps. Mike Rogers, Michael McCaul and Mike Turner, chairmen of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees, respectively.
Also, and this is typical of the Biden stonewall: The document is entirely classified. The GOP lawmakers are calling on the Administration to release an unclassified version, as Congress stipulated, so the public can digest and debate its merits.
Don’t count on the Administration following this order before Nov. 5, if it ever does. A public release might mean that Vice President Kamala Harris would have to explain her own thinking on the war before the election. As long as she doesn’t, and the Administration covers it up, Ms. Harris co-owns Mr. Biden’s record of muddled half measures.
THE HILL
Bipartisan report urges rethink of America’s Russia strategy
by Laura Kelly - 09/28/24 6:00 AM ET
The bipartisan committee charged with supporting democracy and human rights in post-Soviet states is pushing for the United States to dump the post-Cold War status quo in its relations with Russia and label Moscow as a “persistent” threat to global security.
The report from the Helsinki Commission, which was obtained by The Hill ahead of publication, argues that Washington must reframe its thinking in how it approaches Russia, as it has with China over the past few years, and allocate resources accordingly.
A priority focus of the report’s strategy is to ensure Ukraine’s victory in its defensive war against Russia, calling for “massive” military and humanitarian assistance for Kyiv and allowing Ukraine’s armed forces to strike deep into Russia with U.S. provided weapons.
The report’s policy proposals go further than the Biden administration’s commitments to Ukraine and clash with positions held by former President Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, and his allies in Congress.
Trump has long argued the U.S. is spending too much on European security. And he is campaigning on making a deal between Ukraine and Russia through direct negotiations with their leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin.
However, the Helsinki committee’s Republican chair, Rep. Joe Wilson (S.C.), dismissed the potential of Trump striking a deal with Putin.
“No question to me that Donald Trump is going to see the insincerity of war criminal Putin,” Wilson told The Hill in a brief conversation about the report.
“Putin is not anybody that you can reach an agreement with, that would be substantive, that would hold.”
Vice President Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has largely outlined a continuation of President Biden’s policy for Ukraine. Ukraine hawks in both parties say the administration has been too slow in supplying Kyiv with the weapons it needs to repel Russia.
But while the presidential race will surely factor into U.S. policy toward Ukraine and Russia in the years ahead, attitudes in Congress will also be crucial to setting priorities globally.
Even as there is growing opposition to providing military and economic support to Ukraine in the Republican Party, GOP leaders focused on foreign policy are largely bullish on supporting Ukraine, ensuring commitments to NATO and bolstering democracy in post-Soviet states.
This includes Wilson, but also the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas); chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Mike Turner (R-Ohio); Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky); and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee James E. Risch (R-Idaho), to name a few.
These lawmakers are likely to embrace the report’s conclusions that “the United States must prepare for long-term contestation, understanding that Russia has a centuries-long history of violent imperialism toward its neighbors, Europe, and the world more broadly.”
The conclusions seem obvious given the scope of Moscow’s violations of international laws and norms: seizing Crimea and occupying the Donbas in 2014; the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022; its invasion and occupation of Georgia in 2008; the Kremlin’s attack on political dissidents at home and abroad; its interference in U.S. and other democratic elections; the ransoming of Americans jailed in Russia.
Yet foreign policy orthodoxy changes slowly, and the prevailing wisdom since the end of the Cold War has been that cooperation with Russia and economic incentives would moderate its behavior. The Helsinki report seeks to bury that thinking.
“I think the fundamental message is that we are breaking from 30 years of flawed policy,” said a congressional aid familiar with the report.
“One doesn’t need to look far to see that every single president within the first few months of their administration, goes and meets with Putin.”
The U.S. and its allies in Europe are still figuring out how to deal with Russia more than 2 1/2 years since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Biden administration has generally shunned Russia diplomatically and sought to isolate it economically while maintaining some channels of communication to avoid escalations and deal with issues of mutual interest, such as negotiations to free prisoners.
Some Republicans, frustrated by nearly three years of war and some $175 billion in U.S. support, have called for the U.S. to directly intervene in negotiations to end the war. And they warn against dismissing Russia’s nuclear threats as Ukraine takes the fight across the border.
The Biden administration has delivered military support to Ukraine in small increments as a way to probe Russia’s redlines and guard against triggering Putin to follow through on his threats to deploy nuclear weapons.
But Trump-aligned isolationists don’t want the U.S. involved at all. In an op-ed by former independent presidential contender-turned-Trump supporter Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump Jr., the two argue that direct negotiations with Putin will end the war in Ukraine and “prevent nuclear devastation.”
The Ukrainians and Kyiv’s most stalwart supporters have criticized this line of thinking, saying that Ukraine has repeatedly crossed what Russia has laid out as their “red lines” without spurring nuclear war.
They further argue that Putin is a disingenuous negotiator and any deal that concedes Ukrainian territory to Russia will embolden the Russian leader to relaunch an expansionist war in Ukraine, further pursue aggression in neighboring, post-Soviet states and potentially attack NATO member states in which Moscow is already carrying out hybrid-warfare.
The Helsinki report’s recommendations are that Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling “cannot simply be dismissed” but that the solution to this brinkmanship is to address it with “sound reasoning.”
“We can’t let fear dominate how we think about this kind of stuff,” the congressional aide explained about the report’s recommendations — calling for laying out a plan to address and respond to possible nuclear threats and attacks.
The report wants to shift Washington’s thinking away from viewing Russia as a superpower and near-peer of the U.S. just because it holds nuclear weapons.
And overall, the report argues for a U.S. that is fully engaged with allies across the world, in particular those countries on the front lines of Russian efforts at aggression, manipulation and coercion — an argument that pushes back against growing trends of isolationism, particularly in the GOP.
This includes calls for increased military support, economic investment, development support and focus on soft power such as education and people-to-people exchanges. The U.S. should have a long-term strategy to support democratic governance and rule of law in countries vulnerable to threats from Russia, the report states.
“Through persistent efforts geared towards fostering prosperity and democracy and countering Russia’s authoritarian influence, we can minimize Russia’s ability to threaten free societies,” the report states.
“This report will provide a roadmap for minimizing and containing Russia’s destructive behavior until the emergence of internal forces necessary to fundamentally change Russia emerge.”
ROBERT MCCONNELL
Co-Founder, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation
Director of External Affairs, Friends of Ukraine Network
The introduction is Mr. McConnell’s and does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation or those of the Friends of Ukraine Network (FOUN).