Reevaluating Strategy: A Call for Biden to Confront Reality Amidst Ukraine's Crucial Moment
Amidst a critical juncture for Ukraine, President Biden's recent appeal to Congress for aid faced a stark reality check as every single Republican senator voted against a bill aimed at providing more support to the beleaguered nation. The once-assumed continuity of US funding for the Ukrainian war has now become remarkably uncertain, marking a significant setback for a country grappling with ongoing challenges.
President Biden employed various strategies in his plea, emphasizing the domestic economic benefits and national security implications of military spending, while also accusing Republicans of inadvertently aiding Putin. Despite these efforts, the political dynamics surrounding Ukraine aid in the US have transformed it into a contentious issue, likely to play a pivotal role in the upcoming presidential campaign.
This development couldn't have come at a more precarious time for Ukraine. The anticipated 2023 counteroffensive has yielded meager gains, Western support is dwindling, and the impending winter threatens another extensive Russian bombing campaign. The war in Gaza has diverted attention and resources away from Ukraine, while internal discord among Ukrainian leaders and criticisms of the failed winter offensive have begun to surface through strategic news leaks.
However, many of these challenges were foreseeable months ago. The weariness of the American public, burdened by two decades of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, made sustained support for a protracted and inconclusive war in Ukraine unlikely. The conflict has already incurred a hefty cost, surpassing $75 billion for American taxpayers. Additionally, envisioning Ukraine's allies prioritizing defense investment amid economic slowdown and meeting the country's substantial ammunition and equipment needs posed significant challenges.
As Ukraine navigates this complex landscape, the recent political setbacks in securing aid underscore the need for a recalibration of strategies, both domestically and internationally. The evolving dynamics demand a nuanced approach that goes beyond rhetoric, acknowledging the practical constraints and seeking viable solutions to sustain support for Ukraine during these critical times.
Even with a successful Ukraine counteroffensive, numerous challenges persist, as underscored by a recent Washington Post exposé revealing deficiencies in Ukrainian forces' strategic and tactical approaches. The mismatch between US and Ukrainian views on strategy, coupled with suboptimal tactical decisions and unexpectedly resilient Russian defensive fortifications, contributed to a stalemate acknowledged by Ukraine's top general in early November.
As the reality of a prolonged conflict sets in, policymakers in Kyiv and their Western partners face critical questions. Determining the realistic territorial gains achievable through military means, gauging the duration of sustained Western public support for funding the war, and assessing the sufficiency of defense industrial investments for Ukraine's needs become imperative considerations.
The immediate concern revolves around US funding. Historically the primary contributor of military aid to Ukraine, the US faces a nuanced landscape where further aid approval is linked to contentious topics like immigration reform. Even staunch Republican supporters, including Lindsey Graham, tie additional aid to specific conditions. If Congress does not greenlight additional spending, the onus shifts to European states, some of whom are growing apprehensive about the escalating costs of supporting Ukraine. This dynamic places Ukraine in a challenging, though not necessarily catastrophic, position, compelling a more urgent shift to a defensive stance.
Looking ahead, the Biden administration grapples with defining a sustainable US policy for the ongoing conflict. Despite the challenges and the need for strategic reassessment, President Biden has publicly reinforced a tough rhetoric, framing aid approval as essential to preventing Putin's victory. The administration's approach, marked by a hesitancy to contemplate the war's future trajectory, invites scrutiny and raises the overarching question of the long-term vision guiding US involvement in the conflict.
In the face of present challenges, the Biden administration finds itself at a crucial juncture, necessitating the formulation of a viable plan B for navigating the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, regardless of Congress's decision on additional funding. While advocating for a ceasefire may hold little sway at this juncture, establishing lines of communication with Moscow and engaging in candid discussions with Kyiv and European allies about the war's endgame could lay the groundwork for future diplomatic initiatives.
A critical component of this alternative strategy involves crafting a more nuanced narrative. The previous emphasis on aiding Ukraine in retaking territory has proven limiting, especially as territorial gains have proven elusive. The administration should pivot towards a narrative that frames the conflict as a defensive stance for Ukraine and a strategic setback for Russia. Acknowledging other national security priorities that may take precedence underscores a more pragmatic and adaptable approach.
Transitioning the narrative and strategy from an ambitious offensive to a more realistic defensive posture may face resistance in Kyiv and among US allies in Europe. However, this approach, while not guaranteeing victory or significant territorial gains, has the potential to prevent further Ukrainian losses. Importantly, if the Biden administration secures re-election in November, this adjusted strategy positions them more robustly for pursuing armistice negotiations in late 2024.
Emma Ashford, a senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy program at the Stimson Center in Washington DC and author of "Oil, the State and War," proposes this more pragmatic and adaptable strategy as a means to navigate the complexities of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. In this challenging landscape, fostering a narrative that aligns with realistic goals and diplomatic initiatives emerges as a key imperative for the Biden administration's foreign policy agenda.
In conclusion, Emma Ashford, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, Washington DC, presents a compelling argument for a pragmatic shift in the Biden administration's approach to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Faced with challenges such as uncertain congressional funding, geopolitical complexities, and the evolving dynamics of the war, Ashford advocates for a plan B that focuses on realistic objectives.
The proposed alternative strategy involves establishing communication with Moscow, engaging in transparent dialogues with Kyiv and European allies about the war's endgame, and crafting a narrative that positions the conflict as a defensive stance for Ukraine and a strategic setback for Russia. This nuanced approach aims to address the limitations of the previous narrative centered on territorial gains and provides a more adaptable framework that acknowledges broader national security priorities.
While transitioning to a defensive strategy may face resistance, particularly in Kyiv and among European allies, Ashford contends that it offers a pragmatic means to prevent further losses for Ukraine. Importantly, this adjusted approach positions the Biden administration favorably for potential armistice negotiations if re-elected in November 2024.
As geopolitical landscapes continue to evolve, Ashford's call for a realistic and flexible strategy underscores the imperative for the Biden administration to navigate the complexities of the Ukraine conflict effectively. The proposed plan B offers a pathway to reevaluate priorities, engage in diplomatic initiatives, and ensure a more resilient and adaptable stance in the face of an ever-changing global scenario.