Washington is forcing a losing strategy upon Ukraine

Ukraine is now approaching its 18th month of a war of survival against Russian invaders. It is on what could be a pathway to victory, thanks to assistance provided by Washington and Brussels.

But the U.S. has balked at the necessary transition that Ukraine must now make from defense to offense. This is prolonging the war and the suffering it is inflicting upon Ukrainian civilians. 

A lack of confidence in Ukrainians’ ability to defend their country has translated to an abundance of caution that Ukraine could lead NATO into a wider conflict, and potentially a nuclear war. Thus, Washington does not have a winning strategy, but one that continues to “feed the beast.”

Seeking to avoid a direct confrontation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Biden administration’s first instinct in February was to abandon the country and offer Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky an escape route. Zelensky famously replied, “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.” He went on to add, “We will be defending our country, because our weapon is truth, and our truth is that this is our land, our country, our children, and we will defend all of this.”

The Biden administration seized upon Zelensky’s words: “defend our country.” The narrative became, “We want Ukraine to win. … That’s why we are arming the Ukrainians with weapons and equipment to defend themselves from Russian attacks.” It even fit with the administration’s political narrative back home about defending democracy.

But Biden never defined what he meant by “win.” Instead, his team placed its emphasis on one word — “defend.” Their actions to date have supported Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin comments back in April 2022, “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” Provide defensive weapons, turn back the invading force, then negotiate a solution upon stalemate as evidenced by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley when he commented, “There may be a political solution where politically the Russians withdraw.”

Only no one read Ukraine into the Biden end state. No one honestly thought Ukraine could turn back the Russian invader — much less launch a counteroffensive that could potentially restore pre-2014 borders and threaten to end the Putin regime. But here we are — and Washington and Brussels have become weak in the knees.

Their solution? Stick to the “defend Ukraine” narrative. Deny Ukraine the weapons it needs to strike targets in Russia. Attrit and negotiate.

This has prolonged the war and cost hundreds of civilian lives over the past couple months as Russia continues its war on unarmed civilians by bombing residential neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, etc.

In the meantime, as chess legend and Democracy activist Garry Kasparov argues in the Kyiv Post, the Biden Administration is still pursuing a negotiated end to the conflict behind Zelensky’s back. That is not winning — that is throwing your partner under the bus.

Hung Cao, a retired Navy Captain who ran for Congress last year in Northern Virginia as a Republican, argued in a recent oped that Biden has built this reputation over the last three years, beginning in Afghanistan.

But it is not just the U.S. For it was Stian Jenssen, chief of staff to NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who recently suggested that “ceding territory to Russia in exchange for NATO membership could be a way to end the war between the two countries.” Ukraine flatly rejects the proposal.

By slow-rolling armor, aircraft, engineering assets, and precision deep-strike capabilities that Ukraine needs to execute a successful combined-arms counteroffensive, the Biden administration gave the Kremlin time to reconstitute its forces and build defensive fortifications, consisting of extensive trench lines and minefields in depth across a 600-mile front. 

This has forced Ukraine to shift its tactics away from U.S. and NATO doctrine, instead, adapting to the conditions on the current battlefield with the army it has. As a result, every meter is measured in blood. It has been slow, methodical, and conditions-based, but the Ukraine military continues to advance.

To win — to defeat the Russian Army — Ukraine must defeat its ability to mass and sustain personnel and artillery. It is not enough to win the close fight in the trenches and minefields if Putin can simply replace his losses from behind the lines and continue the fight. 

Ukraine must be permitted to interdict the replacements before they arrive on the battlefield — that is, in Russia. To achieve success, they must win the close fight in the trenches and minefields, together with the deep fight, “where the commander sets conditions for future success in close combat.” It must be done concurrently to maintain momentum and create conditions for the breakthrough and subsequent exploitation.

The Department of Defense defines interdiction as “an action to divert, disrupt, delay, or destroy the enemy’s military surface capability before it can be used effectively against friendly forces, or to otherwise achieve objectives.” For Ukraine to interdict these Russian capabilities, they must strike them on the Russian side of the border, where the Russians are staging personnel, weapons, ammunition, equipment, supplies and fuel. This is not about invading Russia, but rather about attacking its ability to wage war in Ukraine.

Unfortunately, these areas were placed off-limits in June when John Kirby told reporters, “We don’t encourage, we don’t enable and we don’t support strikes or attacks inside Russia.” The Pentagon even went so far as to secretly modify the HIMARS it provided Ukraine, so that they “could not be used to fire long-range missiles into Russia … a precaution the Biden administration says is necessary to reduce the risk of a wider war with Moscow.” And Biden continues to deny Ukraine access to ATACMS, either directly or from NATO partners. 

Germany appears ready to follow suit with the Taurus cruise missile, allegedly making alterations to their programming in order to “avoid Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory.” 

In effect, U.S. policy affords the Russian military sanctuary on its side of the border, allowing the Russians to sustain their “special military operation” in Ukraine and continue their wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians unabated. 

Ukraine must be able to protect its citizens as well. It must be permitted to strike the launch sites of drones, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, regardless of their geographic location. In the case of the Mikoyan MiG-31 aircraft and the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal hypersonic missile, that means the airfields from which the aircraft are launched and where the missiles are stored. Interdicting the missiles in flight only defeats each individual missile. If you interdict the weapon system at its launch point or its point of origin, you defeat the capability and set conditions necessary to win.

The Kremlin shows no sign of letting up. Its latest “last gasp” in Kupiansk proves that. As long as they have the means, the Russians will continue the fight — and arguably, the Biden Administration bears some responsibility for this. Although the U.S. has provided Ukraine more than $43 billion in assistance to date, it is not enough to win the war; rather, it is just enough for Ukraine to survive.

Why is this so hard for our elected officials and their political appointees in Washington, D.C. to understand?

Retired Army Col. Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as a military intelligence officer, including tours of duty with the 101st Airborne Division and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012 to 2014. Mark Toth, an economist and entrepreneur, is a former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis.