Jake Sullivan’s new essay reveals a Biden administration in denial about Ukraine

The current issue of Foreign Affairs has published an article by President Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, “The Sources of American Power: A Foreign Policy for a Changed World.” It is a substantial and strategic article. It is laudable that the national security adviser takes time to write such an article, which tells us both what is right and wrong with the current Biden policy. 

By and large, I agree with Sullivan’s outlook, which can be described as traditional liberal internationalist, calling for developing good relations with allies and standing up for them. Sullivan also emphasizes – as his boss does – the importance of democracy in foreign policy. He is no softy but points out that “roughly 20 NATO countries are on track to meet the target of spending two percent of the GDPs on defense in 2024, up from just seven countries in 2022.” His fundamental insight is “that if the United States is unwilling to lead efforts to solve global problems, no one else will step into the breach.” Concretely, this means that the world needs U.S. boots on the ground to keep order, and that is the great U.S. foreign policy conundrum. 

The part of Sullivan’s article that has attracted most attention is his most embarrassing paragraph on Gaza: “The Israeli-Palestinian situation is tense, particularly in the West Bank, but in the face of serious frictions, we have de-escalated crises in Gaza and restored direct diplomacy between the parties after years of its absence.”

Sorry, but not really. 

This article compelled Sullivan to state what he thinks about Ukraine. Sullivan’s concluding statement is fine: “We have to ensure a Ukraine that is sovereign, democratic, and free.”

That is excellent, but how? Sullivan’s answer is not reassuring: “When Putin invaded [Ukraine in February 2022], we implemented a policy to help Ukraine defend itself without sending U.S. troops to war. The United States dispatched massive quantities of defensive weapons to the Ukrainians and rallied allies and partners to do the same.” This is true and highly laudable, and it stands in sharp contrast to the defeatist policy of President Obama in 2014, which then-Vice President Biden opposed. 

Yet this is not a strategy. What is the goal of U.S. policy in Ukraine? Sullivan is positive, but unclear: “Our approach to Ukraine is sustainable.” (Is there anything that is not called “sustainable” these days?) He goes on: “American support for Ukraine is broad and deep, and it will endure.” This is laudable, but too vague. Sullivan avoids the unfortunate administration phrase that the U.S. “will support Ukraine for as long as it takes,” but he omits the goal of the effort.

In contrast, the Ukrainian government is very clear on its aims. First of all, it wants to defeat Russia in Ukraine and restore Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty within the borders of 1991 recognized by all, including Russia time and again. This means that Crimea must be returned to Ukraine. Otherwise, Ukraine’s vital Black Sea shipping cannot be safe. The U.S. should finally declare that it wants Ukraine to defeat Russia. Several other NATO countries have already done so. 

Second, Russia must pay war reparations for all the damage it has caused Ukraine. Last March, the World Bank assessed the damage at $411 billion. The U.S. and other Western countries should confiscate all Russian sovereign assets in the West and pass them on to Ukraine. Congress is currently considering such legislation, the REPO Act. 

Third, Ukraine demands security, which can only mean membership of NATO. Sullivan does not mention that, but he opposed it at the unfortunate NATO summit in Vilnius last June.  

Fourth, Ukraine wants all its citizens who have been deported to Russia to be repatriated. Finally, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for child robbery. He and all the other Russians suspects of war crimes should be prosecuted. 

The most incomprehensible statement in Sullivan’s article is this: “In the decade ahead, U.S. officials will spend more time than they did in the past 30 years talking with countries that they disagree with, often on fundamental issues.”

Really? Does Sullivan want to talk to sanctioned characters, such as Putin, Kim Jong Un and the Iranian Ayatollahs, rather than Western allies? I hope this is just an unfortunate phrase. Just as in President Truman’s time, containment is a more preferable policy. 

The political bottom line is that Biden is not likely to win reelection unless Ukraine wins its war against Russia. He needs to deliver all the relevant arms he can. Currently, Sullivan is always and everywhere making excuses about why relevant arms cannot be delivered. Such arguments do not impress anybody.

Instead, Sullivan should have told us that the U.S. will deliver sufficient arms so that Ukraine’s brave soldiers can defeat Russia. In the current balance in the war in Ukraine, the U.S. can decide whether Ukraine defeats Russia or whether the war winds up in a stalemate.

This should be a crucial and easy choice for anybody who wants Biden to win reelection, but Sullivan avoids this question. 

Anders Åslund is the author of “Russia’s Crony Capitalism: The Path from Market Economy to Kleptocracy.”