If the United States does not send much more modern weapons systems to Ukraine and in sufficient quantities, the war could drag on for a long time.
The column was recorded as part of a special interview with John Herbst on the sidelines of the Kyiv Jewish Forum-2023, which took place on February 15-16
In my opinion, Western support for Ukraine today is quite adequate, as was the policy of the Biden administration – they provided large-scale assistance to Ukraine, about $50 billion a year. I think it’s very good. But when it comes to sending more advanced weapons so that Ukraine can stop Moscow’s advance with fewer casualties, retaliate, the administration is usually slow and timid, and it needs the support of our allies, critics outside the administration and Congress to keep the White House moving. in the right direction.
The UK has done well in this regard. She gave Ukraine the green light to train Ukrainian pilots on Western-made fighter jets. The British tend to like to coordinate with the Americans, to work in tandem. But I think that it was they who became the real leaders of the West after the big invasion of Moscow. We have repeatedly seen the timidity of the White House, which refused to send weapons needed by Ukraine, and the British were ready to go ahead when the White House did not. So it was with anti-ship missiles last spring. This has happened again with tanks in just the last few weeks. And the British decisions helped convince the United States to do what they needed to do without any prodding from London.
At the same time, President Zelensky has done a very good job. He sent direct requests to the White House, to Congress and explained why these requests are of great importance, not only for Ukraine, but also for American interests. And I think that his diplomacy, public and private, has also sometimes helped speed up necessary decisions here in Washington. And yet, I believe the problem remains.
The fact is that the White House was a little scared. Therefore, he restrains himself in providing weapons. All because of what I call the big Kremlin scam.
The US fears that the Russians might actually use nuclear weapons in this war. Many serious people said that this is reality and not a bluff. Of course, one cannot simply ignore Russian nuclear threats. But any rational and comprehensive look at Russian interests will tell you that the chances of them actually using nuclear weapons in Ukraine or in connection with the war in Ukraine are not zero, but very small. Although the White House and the administration have unfortunately said many times, especially in the first eight months of last year, that this is true.
With the help of $50 billion a year, Ukraine destroyed from 30% to 50% of Moscow’s military potential
Therefore, they cannot create a no-fly zone in western Ukraine or send more modern weapons because Russia can escalate. It looks like they are intimidated by nuclear threats, and a superpower should not be intimidated. However, some credible Russians, and I consider them to be those who are part of the security apparatus, publicly say that this is just a bluff on the part of the Kremlin. Retired intelligence officer Dmitry Trenin wrote about it back in December. But somehow this great scam began to directly work against American interests, preventing the US from helping Ukraine defeat Putin in Ukraine.
In addition to the timidity that I see in the administration, part of the Republican Party pursues quasi-isolationist goals, and they have created a wing of the party, whose members find ridiculous reasons for stopping or seriously limiting American assistance to Ukraine. This is much more dangerous than the timidity that we see in the White House. Fortunately, this part of the party performed very poorly in the midterm elections.
But by and large, the Republican leadership in Congress supports Ukraine. They are even increasing the massive assistance that the Biden administration is offering, wanting to send advanced weapons systems such as strike weapons, longer range missiles, F-16 aircraft that the Biden administration is still afraid to send.
At the same time, let me remind you that the Republicans demanded, and many Democrats agreed, that there should be certain conditions for the provision of assistance. Yes, according to the Pentagon, according to USAID and other parts of our government, the assistance we provide to Ukraine is being used properly. That our monitoring system couldn’t be better. But it’s not. And we know that people in Congress who understand how critical our assistance to Ukraine is to American interests are happy to consider new ways of monitoring. And President Zelensky understands that this will be part of the process. Therefore, I am confident that additional measures will be taken to address legitimate concerns about monitoring, without allowing lockdown advocates to obstruct aid under the pretense of monitoring.
Zelensky has done a good job encouraging the Americans to send more modern weapons to the Ukrainians, while being grateful for what we’re doing and not irritating the administration too much. I believe that he will be able to make sure that Ukraine effectively uses the aid we provide, especially on the battlefield, because the isolationist or quasi-isolationist wing of the Republican Party usually makes fictitious arguments that Russia is winning this war, which is simply ridiculous.
There are people who consider it right to stop or limit support for Ukraine. But there are weighty arguments, which, unfortunately, the White House, for some reason, does not dare to use. The first is that the United States has a vital interest in this war. Putin’s goals are crystal clear. He outlined them in these draft treaties. He sent them to us and NATO in December 2021. He wants to gain effective political control over all the NATO member states that used to be part of the Soviet Union, that’s three states. He wants to have the right to veto the defense policy of all the states that used to be members of the Warsaw Pact, that’s another six or seven members of NATO, maybe even more.
So if we accept that NATO will be destroyed as an effective alliance and our security will be threatened in a way that has never been since the end of World War II, our prosperity will be in question. Therefore, a reasonable place for the United States to defeat Putin, and in a way that does not have to defeat him in the Baltic countries with the help of American troops, is Ukraine. And while $50 billion a year seems like a lot of money, it’s about 6% of our defense budget. With this $50 billion a year, Ukraine has destroyed between 30% and 50% of Moscow’s conventional military capability. This is a huge investment in American security. The administration should make this clear, and it should say that our goal in Ukraine is not to support it as much as necessary, which is somewhat vague, but to defeat Putin’s revisionist foreign policy, which is a direct threat to American vital interests. If the administration talks about this often and it is repeated by members of Congress, I think it will become clear to the American people.
Victory means that Ukraine will become a secure state within economically viable borders. This likely includes the entire country that existed before Moscow took over Crimea in 2014. But there may be some adjustments… I repeat, Putin’s goal is effective political control over Ukraine. The prevention of this, the complete or almost complete restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine is the victory of Ukraine.
I think Putin’s control over Russia is such that if he wanted to, he could claim to have achieved his goals in Ukraine. He punished these, without quotes, Nazis in Ukraine. And, now he is withdrawing troops that have successfully completed their mission. I don’t think he’s mentally capable of it, but I think he could get away with it if he dared to. But if he persists in pursuing victory on his terms – which again means effective political control over Ukraine, or even a reduced goal, that is, complete control over all annexed territories – then he will fail, and probably not very good for his political future in Russia.
The hostilities, in my opinion, can continue for four years, because the Ukrainian people do not think that they have an alternative. I believe that, at a minimum, US support for Ukraine will continue at this level, with a slow buildup of more advanced weapons over the next 24 months, possibly longer. If we don’t send much more advanced weapons systems in time and in sufficient numbers, the war could drag on for a long time. But it is also possible that at some point the Russian army in Ukraine may simply fall apart. Morale is still very weak there. And Ukraine still has the initiative.
N.V. Translation
Join our telegram channel Views of NV
