Are we really hoping for a Ukrainian win?

The U.S., its NATO allies, and others have contributed money and equipment to Ukrainians who are continuing to fight the illegal and brutal invasion of their country by Russia’s dictator President Vladimir Putin.

While it may seem odd to raise a question about long-term objectives given the substantial financial outlay, one must wonder if our intent is to achieve a win, which by Ukraine’s stated mission is full expulsion of Russian soldiers from Ukrainian territory.

Just two months ago retired Army Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said in a CBS report that, “It still does not feel like we are all-in to win.”

While no one is suggesting intervention of NATO forces, the scale of weapons delivery is mysteriously lacking on some key fronts.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy repeatedly has sought jet fighters and has been denied this equipment categorically. The rationale for the denial remains unclear. Ukraine has the pilots; the aircraft are available (though not U.S.-made) and maintenance and ammunition are available.

The U.S. offered Multiple-Launch-Rocket-System (MLRS) launchers but is reluctant to offer the full suite of munitions, including Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles that can attack targets to about 300 kilometers, opting instead to send rockets that are capable of striking targets to about 70 kilometers. (There are also extended range rockets that can reach targets to 150 kilometers but it is not clear whether the munitions are included in the Ukraine package).

President Biden approved only four of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers, which is an MLRS variant.  The HIMARS system is a wheeled version of MLRS that is capable of carrying one “pod” of six rockets (as opposed to the tracked version that carries two pods) which can fire all munitions in the inventory.

Four launchers, while effective systems, provide mostly a symbolic effort, not a significant offensive capability on a large scale. It will likely take more than 200 to have a substantial impact on Russian forces.

President Joe Biden has said that he does not want to send systems that can strike into Russia.  Where does he think all of the Russian troops, equipment and weapons come from? Attacking at the source is practical and may prevent large attacks and further disrupt an already befuddled Russian force.

It is clear that jet aircraft, and missile and rocket fire could have major impacts throughout the battlefield and the mobility of the systems greatly increase survivability for the users.

The poorly performing Russian military, in the air and on land, has already had as many as 30,000 combatants who have died in the invasion campaign. Far "more than the Soviet Union lost in 10 years of the war in Afghanistan.”

At the bottom of each of these denials or limits on lethality or range, is likely the threat of nuclear use by the Russians. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Richard Bernstein calls it the “Midway Measures Trap.”

Bernstein succinctly describes the problem.

Beyond the nuclear dilemma, “on several occasions in the post-World War II world, the U.S. has found itself caught between two contradictory imperatives. One is to take steps, including military ones, to respond to aggression or some other threat. The other is to limit the response to contain the costs and the risks if those initial steps prove inadequate to the task—which they often do,” Bernstein wrote.

Ominously, it was reported that President Biden wanted his Secretaries of State and Defense to tone down their comments focused on winning in Ukraine. Biden’s imposed view undoubtedly suggests to the Russians, Ukrainians, and NATO alike is that there is another acceptable course that leads to something other than a victory.

In an NBC report about the episode, Secretary Lloyd Austin said, “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.” Blinken agreed.

What exactly does Biden disagree with related to that statement? Or, the real question that remains, does Biden really want a win or a long slog?

For those who oppose any support at all to Ukraine --- the head-in-the sand crowd --- investments now may keep Russia contained and less able to expand Putin’s ambitions.

Time to step it up.

----

James Hutton is a former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army. Follow him on Twitter @jehutton, GETTR @jehutton, and Truth Social @jehutton