President Joe Biden’s message to Russian President Vladimir Putin was actually robust last week. Unfortunately, Biden’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been weak.
Biden is unwilling to sanction the crown jewel of the Russian economy: its energy industry. Biden also unnecessarily delayed imposing sanctions against Putin’s person. He only did so after receiving pressure from Congress and seeing the European Union move to sanction Putin. The president is also taking too hesitant a stance in pressuring the Europeans to get on board with isolating Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system. But with Russian tanks inside Kyiv and Putin’s onslaught against the Ukrainian people escalating with new war crimes, Biden faces a defining choice: a choice of whether or not to support and arm a Ukrainian insurgency against Russian invaders.
It shouldn’t be a hard decision.
Ukraine is a democracy facing annihilation by a tyrant who pretends to fight Nazis while pursuing an imperialist bigotry that echoes Nazism. Indeed, Putin’s policy makes him close to a modern-day black-hundredist. Top line: America should stand resolutely for those courageous Ukrainian men and women willing to fight for their freedom. What we’ve seen over the past two days proves that there are many such Ukrainians.
Unfortunately, as Jack Detsch and Robbie Gramer report, the Biden administration is hesitant about supporting such a resistance. This hesitation is inexcusable. Russia is waging war on the most sacred principles not just of the post-Second World War democratic international order but of America: those of human freedom.
America should be the arsenal of those on the side of freedom.
That leads me to Charlie Wilson. A number of social media users have pointed out that Charlie Wilson’s Afghan model would be well suited to Ukraine. Wilson was a Democratic congressman instrumental in funding the CIA’s 1980s support of the Afghan insurgency against the Soviet occupation of their nation. That support, especially the provision of man-portable Stinger air-to-air missile systems, enabled the Afghan resistance to destroy Soviet gunships. This eventually led Mikhail Gorbachev to order a withdrawal of Soviet forces, recognizing an increasingly unpopular and unwinnable war.
The CIA could convey a similar understanding to Putin via a covert action campaign in Ukraine. Under federal law, this would require Biden’s presidential finding that such covert action would serve “identifiable foreign policy objectives of the U.S. and is important to the national security of the U.S.” Biden has not yet issued that finding but should do so. After all, the preservation of democracy and the deterrence of external aggression are critical to the U.S. national interest. Once that finding was issued and reported to congressional intelligence committees, the CIA could get to work.
And it could do so quickly. The CIA’s Special Activities Center retains an operational presence that would allow for the rapid organization and supply of insurgent cells inside Ukraine. These cells could then resist the Russian occupation and its collaborators, ensuring Putin incurs a durably high cost for his aggression. Although it would be risky, there is a high appetite within the CIA’s operations directorate to carry forward such action. For similar reasons and with likely enthusiasm from British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government, the British Secret Intelligence Service could complement CIA efforts.
Some will say this course of action is too politically risky or dangerous in terms of escalation.
I disagree. True, the CIA support of the Afghan resistance later became controversial by enabling Islamists, some of whom would later align with al Qaeda. Fortunately, no such concern exists with Ukraine, whose people seek a pro-Western democracy and the right to live in democratic peace. Yes, Putin would present any U.S.-supported insurgency as a U.S. enabling of Nazis, but if he wants to spread that lie, let him. If Putin wants to retaliate against the United States proper, perhaps via cyberattacks, let him then explain to his already protesting people why their cities have no power. If he wants to challenge NATO, let him suffer ignominious defeat. A resolved America owns the escalation curve against Russia, and Putin knows it.
The basic point, however, is quite simple. U.S. military options in Ukraine are politically and operationally unfeasible. But if the president meant what he said in his inaugural address: that “we answered the call of history. We met the moment. That democracy and hope, truth and justice, did not die on our watch but thrived,” then it’s time to resurrect Charlie Wilson’s war.
