US must fully commit to a Ukrainian victory over Russian forces

By Trudy Rubin

As Ukraine gears up for its long-awaited counteroffensive, it's possible to imagine what a victory might look like. That is, if the United States and Europe really seek a Ukrainian win.

Kyiv is in good position to move forward. Moscow's "triumph" in Bakhmut is Pyrrhic: The Russians suffered 100,000 casualties over the past five months, and gained barely any territory except this small ruined city, in which their fighters could yet be encircled by Ukraine's military.

Meantime, Kyiv's clever distraction ― a group of Russian-born Ukraine supporters have made a military incursion just across the Russian border near Belgorod ― has evoked hysteria in Moscow. (Ukraine denies any connection with this minor incursion, just as Moscow did when its own "little green men" invaded Crimea in 2014.)

Almost all that is needed to begin is better weather, some more training, and, most importantly, final delivery of key U.S. and European weapons systems. Then, Ukrainian forces will try to break through Russian defense lines and cut the supply routes between Russia and Crimea, a giant step towards forcing Russians to realize their imperial dreams have turned to nightmares.

Yet the White House can't seem to decide if it wants Ukraine to win, or even to take back Crimea. Until now, it has drifted forward without a clear vision of how it wants the war to end.

Over and over, the U.S. has denied Ukraine key weapons systems at critical moments, only to release them months later. Those weapons then make a huge difference, but only after thousands more Ukrainians have died.

That dithering still persists when it comes to delivering long range ATACM missiles and F-16 warplanes which are vital to destroying Russian logistics and protecting Ukrainian troops from air attack as they advance.

Hats off to Great Britain for recently sending its own long range Storm Shadow missiles. And kudos to EU nations that pressured Biden to finally allow training of F-16 pilots and delivery of some European F-16s. Unfortunately, the warplanes will arrive too late for the counteroffensive, and Ukraine will also need ATACMS ― and, ultimately, U.S. warplanes.

Instead of doling out critical weapons little by little, and trying to micro-manage the conflict, the White House needs an overall strategy for Ukrainian victory. Then it must deliver key systems when they are needed for that strategy to succeed.

Last July, when I interviewed Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov in Kyiv, he begged Washington to "help close the skies" to Russian missiles that were destroying civilians and cities.

Ukraine badly wanted U.S.-made Patriot missile batteries. The Biden administration said no. Reznikov told me he was an optimist, and hoped the Patriots would arrive by year's end. With the Biden team, he said, "the word 'impossible' means possible in the future."

Sure enough, two Patriot systems finally arrived in April 2023, one donated by the United States, one by European allies. Their numbers are only sufficient to defend Kyiv but they have already prevented further carnage. On May 16, they shot down six of Putin's prized Russian Kinzhal supersonic missiles attack that could have ravaged the Ukrainian capital.

Imagine if Ukraine had had the Patriots months ago. How many civilians and cities might have been spared, and what might the battlefield look like today?

And so it has been with every key weapons system the U.S. and Western allies have delivered ― from Javelins and Stingers, to lesser anti-aircraft systems, to HIMARS (the multiple rocket launchers that enabled Ukraine to take Kherson), to Patriot air defenses, to heavy tanks ― and now to long-range missiles and F-16 warplanes. Always dribbled out incrementally, without a long range plan.

"We have failed to design a campaign to win," contended former NATO commander Wesley Clark to the Atlantic Council this week. "We have got to tell Putin he is not winning under any circumstances, and we've got to mean it." And the timing of weapons deliveries must advance that campaign.

Let me note that I applaud President Joe Biden for grasping the West's need to back Ukrainian democracy against Putin's imperial aims. Furthermore, the amount of U.S. military and intelligence aid to Ukraine has been stunning, as has Biden's leadership in pushing EU states to do more.

And shame on Donald Trump's narcissistic boast that he and Putin could solve the Ukraine conflict together in 24 hours. Given Trump's public remarks, the likely GOP candidate would no doubt end U.S. military aid to Ukraine and permit Putin to keep Russian-occupied territory.

Yet, as retired Brig. Gen. Ben Hodges recently told me in an interview "Until the administration says 'we want Ukraine to win', we will continue with incremental decision making" and incremental weapons deliveries. "The president has to say, 'we want Ukraine to win,'" Hodges insisted, "and all the excuses fall away."

Why has Biden refused to use the "win" word? Mostly, as he says, to "avoid WWIII."

However, Putin's repeated nuclear threats have proven hollow. Russia is too weak to launch a suicidal nuclear war against NATO and using a tactical nuke on a Ukrainian city wouldn't help Russia on the battlefield. On the contrary, it might poison thousands of Russians with blowback radiation and would lose the backing of China and India, who have warned Putin against going nuclear.

"Their nuclear weapons are only effective when they do not use them," said Hodges. "Every week in Moscow someone talks about nuclear weapons because they know that gets us to deter ourselves."

Another excuse for U.S. dithering: Some top officials apparently believe Ukraine cannot defeat Russia with its endless supply of manpower, missiles, and planes. They foresee a stalemate that ultimately leads to negotiations between Kyiv and the Kremlin.

This is a self-defeating pipe dream. Ukrainians have shown astounding willpower, courage, and technological innovation, while the Russians suffer sinking morale, poor officers, and corrupt commanders in Moscow. Moreover, a stalemate favors Putin, who will regroup while hoping Western unity withers and Trump is reelected.

And, critically, Ukrainians know from sad experience that negotiating with Putin only buys time for him to attack again.

So now is the moment for the administration to do everything possible for Ukraine to shatter Russian defenses and put its military bases in Crimea within missile range (no invasion is needed to drive Moscow's forces off the Peninsula if its army and navy are cut off from supplies and food).

And now is the moment for Biden and NATO allies to design a strategy for victory that includes all necessary weapons systems.

To dither means the war will indeed stalemate, giving Putin a breather and undermining NATO. Ukraine will be bled dry because its people won't stop fighting for their freedom. Surely Biden does not want to go down in history as the president who allowed war criminal Putin to come out ahead.

Trudy Rubin (trubin@phillynews.com) is a columnist and editorial-board member for the The Philadelphia Inquirer. This column was distributed by Tribune Content Agency.