By President Joe Biden’s logic, we can give Kyiv a little but not too much. U.S. policy seems to be to let Ukraine lose the war, just more slowly.
Can the United States supply advanced weapons to Ukraine yet remain neutral in its war with Russia? Of course – it has been done before.
During the London Blitz in World War II, Britain stood alone against the Nazi onslaught. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who in his recent speech to the British Parliament channeled Prime Minister Winston Churchill, might recall Churchill’s February 1941 message to President Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Give us the tools and we will finish the job.”
The United States was officially neutral at that point in the war but was actively helping the British. Shortly after conflict broke out in 1939, Roosevelt instituted the “cash and carry” policy of arms sales, and in answer to Churchill’s call for the tools of war, Washington passed the Lend-Lease Act. Britain got what it needed to stem the tide.
Biden denies Ukraine critical weapons
However, President Joe Biden is no Franklin Roosevelt. When Poland offered Soviet-era MiG fighters to embattled Ukraine, the Biden administration blocked the transfer. This not only denied Ukraine critical weapons but also strained the NATO alliance during a crisis that demands unity.
True, the United States and other free-world countries are supplying other types of military assistance to Ukraine, such as portable anti-tank and anti-air weapons. On Wednesday, Biden authorized an additional $800 million in aid, and Congress has approved more than $13 billion in military and development assistance. Intelligence sharing has been ongoing. Humanitarian and medical aid is also pouring into the region from around the world. All of this is to the good.
But why not give the Ukrainians the tools they need to win? The usual one-word answer is “escalation.” The assumption is that there is an unstated threshold of support, which, once crossed, would result in an escalatory spiral, perhaps to the level of nuclear conflict. Biden invoked the escalation model when he said sending the Polish MiGs would start “World War III.”
By this logic, Washington can give Kyiv a little but not too much. Our policy seems to be to let Ukraine lose the war, just more slowly.
Soviets supplied North Vietnam
The Soviet Union was not concerned about escalation when it supplied America’s enemies during the Vietnam War. The Kremlin gave North Vietnam all manner of supplies, including advanced weaponry and aircraft. Moscow sent its most sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons to defend Hanoi, and even supplied crews that shot down American aircraft. (Ironically, many of these troops were from Ukraine.)
And while the war raged, Washington and Moscow were actively negotiating important nuclear arms controls agreements. Strategic-level diplomacy was wholly detached from what was happening on the ground in Southeast Asia.
Current U.S. policymakers seem oblivious of the historical examples of American support – overt or covert – for friendly governments fighting adversary states. The Kosciuszko Squadron of American World War I veterans played a pivotal role in securing Polish independence against the Bolsheviks in 1919-20. Pilots of the American Volunteer Group, aka the Flying Tigers, flew American-made aircraft against Japanese forces over China.
And if the Biden administration is worried about MiGs flying into Ukraine from Poland, then just pull them over the border like the United States did when transferring planes to Canada in 1940 to get around Neutrality Acts restrictions.
The Kremlin has threatened to interdict arms shipments, which might explain the expanding Russian strikes on Ukrainian airfields. This is hardly surprising; a regime that targets helpless women and children will of course try to bomb military supplies.
That would not constitute escalation per se unless the attack took place outside of Ukraine. Russian attacks, sabotage or other active measures within NATO countries would be a dangerous escalation by Vladmir Putin, one that would demand a proportionate response.
Warn Russia about aid shipments
Former National Security Council staff member John Quattrocki also suggests giving public and advance warning to Moscow of the Washington’s intention to provide humanitarian relief to the people of Kyiv by flying in unarmed and unescorted cargo aircraft.
If Putin wanted open war with NATO, Ukraine would be the least of his worries. Remember that deterrence works both ways. Yes, Russia is a nuclear power. But the United States is also a nuclear power, with a more capable, more lethal force than the Kremlin commands.
Policymakers should pay less attention to what Putin might do if we annoy him and instead do more to communicate what price the Russian dictator will pay if he continues his crimes against peace.
Meanwhile, the international community should give the Ukrainians everything they need to make Putin’s forces suffer dearly for bringing open war to Europe. And if the Kremlin objects, double the amount.
James S. Robbins, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors and author of “This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive,” is academic dean ad interim at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., and served as a special assistant in the office of the secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration. Follow him on Twitter: @James_Robbins
This article originally appeared on Wichita Falls Times Record News: Biden is playing to lose in Ukraine. Give Ukrainians the weapons they need to win.
