The White House disingenuously claims that it is providing maximal support to Ukraine. This is not true.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan said Monday that the “administration is working around the clock to fulfill Ukraine’s main security assistance requests — delivering weapons from U.S. stocks where they are available and facilitating the delivery of weapons by allies where allied systems better suit Ukraine’s needs.”
Sullivan asserted that “in some cases, that means sourcing systems from other countries because the U.S. either doesn’t have the system or doesn’t have a version that could effectively be integrated into the fight. Sorts of systems like this include longer-range anti-aircraft systems, artillery systems, and coastal defense systems.”
This is spin.
The reason the United States is not providing “longer-range anti-aircraft systems, artillery systems, and coastal defense systems” is not that the U.S. “doesn’t have a version that could be effectively integrated into the fight.” Rather, this is happening because Biden’s White House is obsessed with not overly aggravating Vladimir Putin, as if that could possibly matter now. Either that or the administration doesn’t actually want Ukraine to defeat the Russian forces that have invaded and committed such brutal crimes. So, instead, the administration ignominiously suggests that other nations should take the risks of supplying these weapons. But let’s take each of Sullivan’s claims in turn.
For a start, air defense.
It’s true, the S-300 air defense system is best suited to Ukraine’s ranged air defense needs. But Ukraine needs more such systems, something Slovakia says it will provide. As Josh Rogin reports at the Washington Post, Slovakia simply wants the U.S. to backfill its air defense needs. Biden has been dragging his feet on this exchange request for weeks now, almost certainly because of Sullivan’s risk-averse national security council.
The U.S. has other air defense systems, such as the Avenger system (eight Stinger missiles, two launcher-loaded Humvees), which could help Ukraine now. Easy to use, the Avengers would complement Ukraine’s small, highly mobile strike teams. The longer range wouldn’t come from the Humvee per se (although it enables beyond-visual range targeting of aircraft), but rather the Humvees’ ability to deploy those weapons into the deep battlespace. Britain has given Ukraine its Starstreak anti-air system (multiple projectiles at a single target), so why hasn’t the U.S. provided the Avenger?
Again, this shows Biden is not doing what’s needed to defeat Putin’s invasion.
With respect to artillery, the Biden administration has deployed at least 100 of the Switchblade series of drones to Ukraine. These drones allow small units to detect and target enemy forces at a longer range than other small drones. Switchblade manufacturer AeroVironment tells me that it has delivered several hundred of these weapons to the U.S. military. So why has the U.S. sent only 100 to Ukraine? Why not send the stockpile and give AeroVironment a replacement contract to restock the U.S. military?
There are other things the Ukrainians need that we are not providing. U.S. multiple-launch rocket systems, such as the M-270 or M-142, can range out to nearly 200 miles. Although they would require a greater training window than the Avengers, they are designed for ease of use. Ukrainian soldiers could be trained by U.S. forces based in nearby Poland, then drive the vehicles back across the border. What’s the risk? If the war ends before the troops are trained, then fine. Otherwise, the Ukrainians will have a potent new weapon at their disposal.
With respect to coastal defense systems, the U.S. could provide weapons such as older versions of the Harpoon missile, which can be put on trucks alongside a relatively simple command-and-control apparatus. It would not be complicated to get this into Ukraine’s hands. These would obviate any need to give Ukraine our most sensitive anti-ship missiles, such as the Naval Strike Missile and longer range LRASM, which must not be captured and compromised by Russian forces (who would then almost certainly share them with China).
Other anti-ship weapons such as the French MM40 Exocet missile and RBS-15 would feasibly allow for a shore-to-surface strike capability, but the practicality of getting these weapons to Ukrainian forces and making them operational is unclear.
The bottom line is that the Biden administration has options to support Ukraine, and it isn’t using them. As I see it, there are only two credible explanations for this failure — the first being that the Biden administration is too risk-averse and fearful of Putin’s escalation. This is a flawed strategic calculus. Putin views his territorial and political neutering of Ukraine as an almost theological objective, but he is not crazy. Putin knows he cannot win a nuclear war. His subordinates also understand this and would be more likely to replace Putin in a palace coup than to carry out such a nuclear strike.
There’s also the possibility that the Biden administration does not actually want Ukraine to win the war fully by dislocating Russian forces from Ukraine. As others have suggested, the administration might want Ukraine to be able to do just enough to get Russia to the negotiating table on somewhat equal terms. If this is the calculus, it is both incorrect and immoral. For this war to end, Putin must understand that he cannot possibly bear its costs. If the Russian military suffers sufficient losses to its lines of communication, its front lines will collapse. Putin will then have to choose between the bloody implosion of his field army or a face-saving withdrawal. That means giving Ukraine every possible weapon now in order to rout Putin’s forces.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration is not doing what it needs to do.
