Biden needs to answer these 3 questions about Ukraine

In his recent surprise trip to Kyiv, President Biden took pains to note that assistance to Ukraine has been “bipartisan.” That is true, but it is also true that some Republicans are beginning to question what House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called the “blank check” that Biden seems to be offering the war-torn nation.

Republicans and others debating the open spigot of U.S. aid are not pro-Russia or anti-Ukraine, they simply want some answers as the U.S. ships an unprecedented amount of money and arms to the beleaguered country. Last year Congress approved $113 billion in munitions and aid for Ukraine, an amount greater than budgeted for the U.S. Department of Education or the Department of Homeland Security. Imagine that.

Polls show U.S. enthusiasm for helping Ukraine is waning. In a recent survey, 48 percent of U.S. adults approved sending weapons to Ukraine; a year ago, 60 percent were in favor.  

Biden is to blame for this sliding support. On his trip the president spoke about the war to the people of Poland and to those in Kyiv. But when was the last time he spoke to Americans? When did he last hold a press conference about our strategy in Ukraine, perhaps joining with our military leaders? True, he touched on the war in his State of the Union speech but expended a mere 224 words on the conflict in a 9,000-word address. He spent more time denouncing baggage fees than explaining what U.S. ambitions were in Ukraine.

From the start, Biden has not been straightforward. When Russia’s tanks first rolled across Ukraine’s border, he tried to avoid blame for failing to dissuade the aggressor, denying that the heavy sanctions imposed on Russia before the war were meant to act as a deterrent. He was not honest then; nothing has changed.

To regain the trust and backing of Americans for our engagement in Ukraine, Biden needs to answer three questions.

The first question is: What is the plan? Do we and our NATO allies have a strategy for Ukraine? Are we trying to win this war?

Search Biden’s recent speeches in Poland and Kyiv and you will not find the “w” word. There’s lots of talk about supporting Ukraine, holding Russia accountable and seeking justice, but Biden never says we intend to win the war. Is that purposeful? That seems to be a fundamental question.

Many remember the Vietnam War, in which our troops were ultimately routed in part because the U.S. government and its military had not committed to winning that conflict. Our GIs fought with one hand tied behind their backs; defeat ensued.

The U.S. and its allies have fought an incremental war, gradually escalating our commitment of weapons in a manner calculated to keep Russia at bay but not to drive Putin out of Ukraine. With each ratcheting up of intensity, we hem and haw and finally accede to Kyiv’s demands. We wavered for months over sending 31 Abrams tanks into battle, only deciding to do so after Germany had agreed to give 14 of its Leopard 2 tanks to the war effort and when the decision became critical.

It seems our officials don’t want to make Russian President Vladimir Putin, perpetrator of hideous war crimes, too angry. Angry, yes; too angry, no. We are wary of crossing some invisible line, fearful – reasonably – of his nukes, though surely Russia’s leader is aware that deploying nuclear weapons would lead quickly to Moscow’s annihilation. The approach is not optimal, as we always seem to be playing catch-up and meanwhile are allowing enormous death and destruction in an allied country.

The second question Americans are asking: Is our aid being stolen? Remember that Ukraine is a notoriously corrupt nation. President Volodymyr Zelensky has earned high marks not only for bravery and inspiring his people, but also for tackling government bribery and fraud. But a nation does not reform overnight.

 Zelensky recently fired a deputy minister in the infrastructure agency who had reportedly taken a $400,000 bribe from a criminal gang for “helping with equipment and machinery purchasing contracts,” according to the New York Times.  

Days later, Zelensky dismissed several top officials in response to another corruption scandal in which members of the military are accused of inflating the prices being paid for food to feed the army and skimming money off the top.

U.S. officials are paying attention. Earlier this year, inspectors general from the State Department, Pentagon and U.S. AID traveled to Ukraine to assess the monitoring of goods and cash being sent to Kyiv. Though they claim not to have witnessed evidence of large-scale fraud, all three are pushing to install inspectors on the ground, with one arguing that “for real comprehensive, robust oversight, it can’t be done remotely.”

Heretofore, the Biden White House had set a limit of how many government employees could be stationed in Ukraine, because of the war risk. As evidence of ongoing corruption swells, there must be exceptions made to allow more on the ground oversight of taxpayers’ billions.

The third question Americans should be asking is: At what point will we say “enough”?  How much is the Biden administration prepared to spend on the war in Ukraine? Have they set a limit? We’ve sailed right past $100 billion. Is $200 billion the break-point? $300 billion?

And how about the ongoing devastation of Ukraine? How much can the people of that sad country endure? That decision will have to come from Ukrainians, but the funding and patience of their western allies is not infinite. It would be helpful to understand what Joe Biden sees as the end game; Americans deserve to know.

Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. Follow her on Twitter @lizpeek.