Belatedly visiting Kyiv on Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken reaffirmed the United States’s support for Ukraine.
But while the U.S. will provide Ukraine with an additional $200 million in defensive support, something the White House has unnecessarily hesitated about for weeks, Blinken added that he would not provide a written response to Russian security demands. Russia had sought that response this week. Blinken will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on Friday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Lavrov, and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov have issued three demands. First, a U.S.-NATO commitment that Ukraine and Georgia, and possibly also Finland and Sweden, will never be allowed to join NATO. Second, a U.S. commitment not to deploy short- or intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Central Europe or Eastern Europe. Third, that NATO agree to restrict its military activity in Ukraine and NATO member states such as Poland and the Baltic states, which joined the alliance after 1997.
Why won’t the U.S. provide a response prior to Blinken’s meeting with Lavrov?
As Russian military forces mass within and along Ukraine’s northern, eastern, and southern borders, it is likely the Biden administration does not wish to appear that it is rewarding Putin’s escalation. Considering the penchant for appeasement that has defined President Joe Biden’s policy toward Russia, it is also possible that the White House is trying to figure out what it can give Russia without detonating a U.S. credibility bomb in the Western alliance’s structure.
The problem, however, is that Russia will use the failure to offer a response to its advantage. Moscow will say the U.S. is not serious about diplomacy and that it must thus pursue other avenues of escalation. It would give Putin domestic propaganda fodder to escalate against Ukraine. It will also spin the failure to respond in order to exploit divisions in the trans-Atlantic alliance. Put simply, refusing to offer a response now does not achieve anything positive.
Instead, the U.S. should send Russia a letter. It should say something like this: “In response to your specific concerns, we clarify the following. First, the principle of verified reciprocity must be central to any future agreements. Second, we believe that improved communication on deconfliction, especially in relation to military exercises proximate to NATO-Russia borders, offers the potential for constructive negotiation. Third, we are willing to limit the deployment of short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Europe, subject to associated actions by Russia and Russia’s restoration of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Fourth, we are unwilling to commit to limiting NATO military activity within member states and remain absolutely committed to our common defense. Fifth, though NATO’s near-term expansion is unlikely, we are unwilling to commit to limiting the alliance’s membership base.”
This response would offer Russia both what it wants and what it respects. Which is to say, a formal response, reflecting Moscow’s great power status and a clarification of U.S. resolve. This letter would also consolidate U.S. allies in Eastern Europe who are concerned by the Biden administration’s long apparent weakness toward Russia.
At the same time, the U.S. should boost its overt, lethal support to Ukraine — as the United Kingdom is now doing with multiple antitank weapons supply flights each day, Canada with the deployment of special forces, and Australia with the looming deployment of a multifaceted security package.
This approach would allow Blinken to enter his Friday talks with Lavrov from a baseline of clarity and strength. As things stand, Lavrov will likely unveil one of his showman escapades, making the U.S. look weak and desperate. And the U.S. will gain nothing good.
