Biden Needs Ukraine to Start Winning Again

For his own reelection campaign, Biden needs Ukraine as much as Ukraine needs Biden.

After Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008, the leadership of the Obama campaign wanted me personally to brief Senator Obama about this war. I worked on the campaign from the very beginning but had only spoken to Obama over the phone by then (the campaign headquarters were in Chicago and I lived in California). Excited to finally meet Obama in person, I joined his traveling campaign team in southern California at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church on August 16, 2008, where both Obama and Senator McCain spoke that day. That evening we flew on “Obama One” to Reno, Nevada, and spent the whole flight talking about Russia and Georgia, and even a little bit about realism and liberalism. (I’ll save my thoughts on that IR theory discussion with Obama for another Substack post.) It was just four of us at the table: Obama, his foreign policy advisor at the time Mark Lippert, chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, and me. It was time to make my points.

Not surprising to anyone who knew my views then, or today for that matter, I advocated for a strong response from Obama in reaction to Russia’s invasion. I made my case for why I thought it was in the U.S. national security interests to respond forcefully. (I testified before the U.S. Congress next month which you can read here). After making my policy arguments, I began to explain how a strong response could help Obama win voters of Eastern European descent living in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Obama interrupted me. He wanted my foreign policy advice, not my campaign advice. The latter was not my job. That was for “Axe,” aka David Axelrod.

That was an important lesson that I carried with me during my three years at the White House at the National Security Council. For those of us working at the NSC, our job was to offer advice on national security and foreign policy, not politics, especially electoral politics. Axe also came to work at the White House. His job remained the politics.

Generally, this division of labor between foreign policy and politics at the White House is prudent. But sometimes, it leads to a disconnect that does not serve the president well. Right now is one of those moments. Today, Biden needs to do more to help Ukrainian armed forces perform better on the battlefield. Ukraine’s clear wins on the battlefield –further liberation of occupied territories and pushback of the Russian troops – serve both American national security interests and Biden’s electoral interests. Let me explain.

Joe Biden’s Visit to Kyiv in February 2023. Source: The White House via Wiki Commons

For six months, Republican dysfunction in the U.S. Congress delayed approval of a new aid package to Ukraine. That was shameful and led to too many Ukrainians – soldiers and civilians – being killed by Putin’s invading army. Republicans, including the presidential candidate Trump, were rightly blamed for this delay. But now that the new $60 billion aid package has been approved, the political tables have turned. Now, the pressure is on President Biden to show results; that a generous aid package from American taxpayers/voters indeed helped Ukraine achieve tangible results. If nothing changes on the battlefield as a result of this aid before November, or worse yet, Russia is making gains on the battlefield this summer and fall, Trump is going to blame Biden for “wasting” our money on a “losing” cause. Trump will instead contend that he will leverage his close personal relationship with Putin to end the war.

So, for both policy reasons and his reelection, Biden needs Ukrainian armed forces to start scoring new victories today. It is a good policy but it is also good politics, especially for attracting voters with family ties to Eastern Europe who live in swing states.

The biggest and most immediate policy change is for Biden to relax his ban on using American weapons to attack targets inside the Russian Federation. This policy has become especially damaging to Ukrainian armed forces now that Putin has launched a counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region. Look at the map. The Kharkiv region is right on the border with Russia. That means that Russian artillery can attack Ukrainian targets, but Ukraine’s armed forces cannot use American weapons to fire back. This is not the way to fight a war. Lifting this American limit could create momentum on this new frontline of the war before November. .

Some on Biden’s foreign policy team rightly worry about escalation. And with good reason. Biden himself shares that concern. But Putin is already using his full arsenal in Ukraine, except for tactical nuclear weapons – one last move remaining in this playbook. But that kind of escalation would be highly unlikely now, especially in response to an incremental change in U.S. policy. Putin thinks he is winning now. He is also waiting for Trump to be reelected. It is not in his personal interest to become an international pariah now.  And when you talk to Ukrainians, they remind you that they are the ones who would be attacked with a nuclear bomb, not us. Putin has never threatened to use a nuclear weapon against the United States. Ukrainians would like us to stop being so paternalistic in deciding what is best for their national security interests.

The other major possible policy change for the Biden administration has to do with Crimea. Ukrainian officials have hinted that they will not be ready to launch a full-scale counteroffensive in eastern Ukraine until the spring of 2025. But with more longer-range missiles from the United States, they believe that they can make real gains in expanding the fight to Crimea. That would be a huge psychological blow to the Russians. Biden and his team should do all that they can to assist Kyiv in this effort. Seeing Russians occupying Crimea flee back to Russia would be a great moral boast for Ukrainians and Biden’s campaign.

This has been the most difficult year of the war for Ukrainians. Our delay in providing new assistance was demoralizing. Ukrainian soldiers are tired and depleted. Russia’s army is making some territorial gains. Sanctions have become leaky. President Zelenskyy, Ukrainian generals, and warriors need more of our help to achieve some victories on the battlefield. And Biden needs a change in dynamics on the battlefield, both to advance U.S. security interests and aid his reelection efforts. If I still worked at the National Security Council or our embassy in Moscow, I could not have made such arguments. But I don’t work for the Biden administration and, therefore, can urge him to do not only what is right for our country, but also what is good for him.