“The turning point. It’s time for Biden to directly answer the question of whether the US wants Ukraine to win — Politico September 19, 23:53 Share: US President Joe Biden has already crossed more than one so-called red line, writes Politico (Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo) Politico journalist Matthew Kaminsky wrote an article titled Does America Want Ukraine to Win? It doesn’t look like it. In the article, he proves that the foreign policy legacy of US President Joe Biden”, — write on: ua.news
US President Joe Biden has already crossed more than one so-called red line, writes Politico (Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo)
Politico journalist Matthew Kaminsky wrote an article with the title Does America Want Ukraine to Win? It doesn’t look like it. In the article, he proves that US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy legacy will be determined by his decision regarding Ukraine’s long-range strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation with Western weapons.
As the author of the Politico article writes, the Ukrainian leadership is worried about the upcoming elections in the USA, which “will determine their fate” and events at the front. The fighting in the spring and summer of 2024 brought success to Ukraine — “a stunning invasion of Russia and technological advances in the field of unmanned and robotic warfare that nullified the enemy’s advantage in manpower and weapons.”
“But the human losses for Ukraine are huge — photos of those killed in battle hang all over Kyiv. Russia is stepping up its bombing campaign, particularly on the capital and energy infrastructure, and fears are growing that this winter could be the worst on record,” the article reads.
In this context, great hopes are placed on Washington: in the coming weeks, the US president must decide whether to allow Ukraine to strike long-range Western weapons against military targets deep in Russia, and this may become “a turning point” in Washington’s war policy.
The journalist notes that Ukraine’s request is justified, and such a decision would not be a greater escalation than the transfer of Abrams tanks, F-16 fighters or ATACMS missiles to the Defense Forces. In his opinion, “it’s more about allowing Ukrainians to fight as well as they can.” Russian dictator Putin started threatening again “war” of the West in the case of granting Ukraine permission to strike, as it did every time during the consideration of the US allegedly “escalating” requests of Kyiv.
“Each time, nothing changed when Biden, almost always after long deliberation, signed one or another allegedly escalating step,” Kaminski writes.
The US elections are less than a month and a half away, and the head of the White House has to think about his own “heritage,” the article emphasizes.
If the US refuses Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russia
During the Yalta European Strategy meeting (YES) Ukrainian leaders stressed that they must defend themselves against Russian drones and missiles launched by the aggressor country from its territory. In addition, they explained that “it is always useful to make the Kremlin nervous about what else Ukraine can and will do to move the war to the territory of the Russian Federation.” The author of the article reminds that Ukraine has already used Western missiles to push Russian forces away from Crimea.
The Ukrainian side hoped that the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who came to Kyiv on September 11, would resolve the issue of strikes against the Russian Federation. Instead, he promised to pass on what he heard to Biden. Hopes for Biden’s meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also did not come true, and now Ukraine “is looking forward to the meeting of the UN General Assembly” in New York, on the sidelines of which President Volodymyr Zelensky will talk with Biden. He is expected to show the head of the White House “victory plan” of Ukraine. At the same time, the journalist notes that “now it is almost impossible for Putin to agree to something acceptable for Ukraine.”
Politico notes that the Biden administration previously feared escalation over Russia’s nuclear arsenal, but now it does “not so important” after “Russia’s patron China ordered Putin not to rattle these weapons. In addition, Putin knows that nuclear escalation could be his own end, writes the journalist.
For the first time since 1990. Putin may conduct nuclear tests in response to permission to fire long-range missiles at Russia — Reuters
The fear that Russia might arm US enemies in the Middle East, such as the Houthis, is also not a valid argument, because “nothing prevents them from doing so now,” the article said. The Kremlin has already declared that it is not at war with Ukraine, which is not even considered a sovereign state in Russia, but with the entire West.
Kyrylo Budanov, the head of the GUR of the Ministry of Defense, noted that the arguments are about escalation “very much in the spirit of 2014.” Politico describes how a weak Western response to the 2014 occupation of Crimea ended in a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Currently, according to Budanov, it is ongoing “a standard conventional war with the use of all types of conventional weapons.”
“Everything that is in Russia is delivered here. In a global sense, they can’t do anything while this war is going on,” he said.
Another Ukrainian high-ranking official said that “we crossed all the red lines, and [росіяни] now the weakest.” Kaminsky notes that the increase in military support has enabled Ukraine to significantly reduce the Russian army in ways that benefit the security interests of Europe and the United States.
The journalist writes that the decision should be made faster because “alarming prospects on the battlefield” — although the Defense Forces captured about 1,300 sq. km of territory in the Kursk region and destroyed a third of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation, the Russian invaders are advancing in the Donbass and inflict massive strikes on the largest cities of Ukraine.
The article also says that there are domestic political reasons for the delay in the US decision. Donald Trump, who won the election in 2016, opposed US involvement in wars. This time, he accused Biden of failing to prevent Russia’s war against Ukraine and promised to end it before his inauguration, despite the legal impossibility of doing so. The journalist asks whether Putin can escalate in an attempt to help Trump win the election and whether Biden will take such a risk.
“Biden could wait until election day to approve attacks on Russia and keep it as far away from American politics as possible. But it’s not like Putin needs an excuse to spread misinformation or create trouble in the Middle East or Europe — or, for that matter, in our politics,” Kaminski notes.
The US could insist that refineries and others be excluded from the list of targets “sensitive targets”, in particular, perhaps Moscow, but these are details. According to the author of the article, from the very beginning of the full-scale war, the White House avoided the question of what a victory for Ukraine would look like and whether the United States wanted it – because it would mean that “Putin will lose.” A decision on long-range strikes may provide an answer to this question.
Airports, but not power plants. The NYT revealed the content of the discussions between Ukraine and the US regarding the goals and consequences of long-range strikes on Russia
Politico points out that the US promised Ukraine support “as much as it will be necessary”, but they never specifically said what Ukraine’s victory would look like, and “the closest translation was “not to lose””. The author of the material concludes that the NATO allies have made it clear to Russia: they will help Ukraine, but not so much as to disrupt the status quo in Russia itself.
“Victory, which would mean an independent and integral Ukraine within its borders, implies that Russia, which seeks to recreate the old empire, will have to be changed. This is the type of victory that Washington did not sign up for,” the article says.
At the end of the article, Kaminski describes the visit of President George Bush Sr. to Kyiv in August 1991. In his speech before the then Soviet parliament of Ukraine, he called on Ukrainians not to seek independence from Russia and to resist “suicidal nationalism”. His own “with a weak-willed and somewhat cowardly speech,” Bush Sr. made it clear that he was more afraid of the consequences of Russia’s collapse than he was eager to defend democratic values. A few weeks later, more than 90% of Ukrainians supported the independence of Ukraine in a referendum, and the speech of the US president went down in history as “Kflew away in the Kyivan way”.
The journalist emphasizes that the actions of the USA are closely watched by both allies and enemies. After withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Washington abandoned its allies there, and Biden’s approval rating has since begun to decline, writes Politico.
“Have no illusions about a quick victory”: WSJ named the White House’s goals for the war in Ukraine until the end of Biden’s term
“Ukrainians and their friends have been loudly hinting that Biden has a chance to change his legacy in the last four months. Throw caution aside and firmly support Ukraine’s victory by giving it all the tools it needs to win, not just to not lose or, as Ukrainians fatalistically say in the third year of the war of attrition, to “die a slow death,” he concludes. the author of the article. Otherwise, Biden risks repeating the “Kiev cutlet,” he adds.
