The West is ramping up its support for Ukraine.
Western weapons continue to flow to the Ukrainian military. The United States is sharing intelligence with Kyiv on Russian troop movements, which have helped the Ukrainians kill some of Russia’s high-ranking commanders — approximately 12 Russian generals have died since the war began on Feb. 24.
The European Union has proposed a sixth set of sanctions on Russia, this time with a phased embargo of Russian oil and a prohibition on EU-based companies from transporting and insuring Russian crude oil. The Russian military is aiming its fire ever more aggressively against Ukraine’s infrastructure, targeting electric power stations, railroads, ammunition dumps, and fuel depots. In turn, the U.S. and its European allies have settled on a joint strategy: cripple the Russian economy and provide Kyiv with all of the weapons it needs to stymie Russian advances. What the U.S. and Europe seem to be lacking, however, is a goal. That matters because a strategy without goals is like mindlessly driving on the interstate without a clue as to where you’re trying to go.
Some people may find this statement strange. After all, the U.S. and the West writ-large couldn’t be any clearer in their public condemnations of Russia’s invasion of a neighbor and in their full-throated support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. But parse some of the recent comments made by U.S. officials since the war started, and you might be less confident about what Washington’s objectives really are.
The way Secretary of State Antony Blinken describes it, the U.S. goal is to stop the violence and get Russian troops to withdraw. Addressing the State Department press corps on March 17, Blinken said that each step the U.S. and its allies take is geared toward one goal: “to end the war.” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is more ambitious. He said the weapons, intelligence, and other forms of military assistance the U.S. is providing are not merely intended to help Ukraine defend itself but also to weaken Russia as a great power over the long term. The U.S., in other words, wants Russia’s military capacity so whipped that it can’t do to its other neighbors what it has done to Ukraine. If Austin had his way, Ukraine would be an opportunity to bog Moscow into an unwinnable quagmire in which Putin is forced to throw all of Russia’s combat units into the meat-grinder.
President Joe Biden’s goals for Ukraine are more grandiose, at least rhetorically. Speaking at the White House on April 28, Biden framed his $33 billion supplemental assistance legislation to Ukraine as ammunition to ensure the irredentist claims of a vicious dictator were stopped cold. Helping Kyiv thwart Russia’s invasion was about more than safeguarding Ukraine’s freedom — it was, as Biden put it that day, “to lessen the risk of future conflicts” and show dictators in Putin’s ilk that aggression begets pain economically, diplomatically, and militarily. Days later, at a Lockheed Martin plant in Troy, Alabama, the president talked about the war in Ukraine as a seminal moment in an epochal, zero-sum contest between democracies and autocracies.
So, again, the question must be asked: What exactly is the U.S. trying to accomplish in Ukraine? What is the end-state? Is the end-state realistic? And if it isn’t, how long it will take Washington to figure it out?
“If you want to achieve your goals, then you need a plan for exactly when and how you’re going to execute on them.” That quote, from the author James Clear, is useful advice for everyday life. But it’s just as relevant in foreign policy, where goals can quickly morph depending on facts on the ground, geopolitical circumstances, and the assumptions and belief systems our leaders take with them to the office.
There is no doubt the U.S. is executing in Ukraine. Toward what end is a bit of a mystery.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
