Remind me never to depend on America for support in a long war. We are a "constant" ally, but only in the worst sense: constantly distracted, constantly second-guessing those who are actually doing the fighting on the frontlines, and constantly dithering when instead we should be giving our friends what they need to win.
I think the bipartisan House of Representatives letter to Secretary Austin is a good start. It argues for no restrictions on use of U.S. weapons against certain targets within Russia, for the training of additional F-16 pilots, and for increased provision of air defense assets, especially Patriots. https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/5.20.24_joint_letter_to_dod_for_urgent_ukraine_aid.pdf
I have some additional suggestions for items Ukraine urgently needs right now -- I know we all do. I also have a few suggestions on military strategy that would not be appropriate to detail in this forum, but which I think would give Ukraine winning chances in this conflict.
The key problem is that if Ukraine has to wait until 2025 to act, it may be too late. I think we all understand that if Trump is elected, he will betray Ukraine in an instant, and Ukrainians will be condemned to another dark age of repression. In addition, President Biden needs a foreign policy victory --he has precious few at the moment. Foreign policy success is almost never a determinant in U.S. presidential elections, but he'll need all the help he can get to win in November, and dithering on Ukraine for another six months won't cut it.
I grew up in Kiev, so I have many classmates over there from three schools. Today, one of them posted on Facebook that he was stopped by police on the street and transferred to a military draft representative who was checking on a computer whether he had registered for a draft. Now my other classmates (all 54 year old) discuss who was drafted already and who is going to be drafted. They are typical office people, a lawyer, a finance consultant, the same type as office people in Palo Alto, not suitable for the battlefield. I don't think they would be happy to know that Biden wants them in the trenches to help him win his election in the United States.
Considering that you grew up in Kyiv, why do you spell the city name in the Russian language. The Ukrainians whom I know would be quick to respond that the city's name is Kyiv.
All my English teachers in Kiev from 4th grade (1980) till 10th grade (1987) used the spelling Kiev which was the standard spelling in the Soviet Union at that time. The majority of children in Kiev (~80%) grew up with Russian as their mother tongue rather than Ukrainian. For this reason I am used to the spelling of Kiev as my city and do not see a reason to change it. I do understand Ukrainian but Russian is my native language as well as the native language of the majory of Ukrainian east of 9 west Ukrainian oblasts.
It’s Putin that wants them in the trenches, I think. I don’t agree with Biden’s decision and I hope he changes it but it’s not he that is making war on Ukraine.
Your argument is compelling, but how would the discussion change if an American bomb hit a Russian school, hospital, or apartment building? I’m thinking we also need to consider the next steps.
Let me preface my comments with these admissions upfront--I don't know what the right decision is on permitting Ukraine to strike inside Russia with US supplied missiles. I deeply desire complete victory for Ukraine. For a long time, I argued against permitting Ukraine to strike targets within Russia with US missiles because, by empowering Ukraine to do so, the US would have essentially made Ukraine the US's agent in attacking Russia. We are all alive today because we and the USSR/Russian Federation avoided such overt attacks. (With the obvious exceptions of the Cold War shenanigans in which one Soviet/RF plane or ship would fly or sail menacingly close to a US plane or ship.)
I acknowledge Ukraine's current acute need for this flexibility in the battle for Kherson. Like you, I do not think Putin will resort to nuclear or other radiological weapons. The US has make clear to Putin's government what will happen to Russia if they do. But there is another factor to consider when weighing the risks of authorizing Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with US missiles. It sets a dangerous precedent. If we arm Ukraine to target Russia with missiles, what will stop Russia from arming any or all of our enemies to strike inside the US?
If there are counterarguments to this, I'm eager to read them. If I'm misperceiving the risks of allowing Ukraine to strike inside Russia with our weapons, I want to know that. Comments are welcome.
You write, "For six months, Republican dysfunction in the U.S. Congress delayed approval of a new aid package to Ukraine. "
That is certainly true. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that Europe appears unwilling to defend itself effectively, even though it is considerably richer than Russia. Thus, Europe has to rely on the U.S. And thus, on MAGA Republicans.
As painful as it is, intellectual honesty would seem to require us to admit that Donald Trump may be the politician who has most effectively made the case for ending Europe's dependency on America. It seemed that it was only when Trump started bellowing about maybe leaving NATO that the Europeans finally started doing what a series of American presidents had asked them to do.
Hitting targets in Russia raises all kinds of concerns. Before we move to that we should be asking why we can't effectively hit Russian targets on Ukrainian soil. If we can't produce artillery shells far faster than Russia, why is that? The Ukraine war is now 2 years old. How long does it take to make an artillery shell? Why doesn't Europe have stockpile of artillery shells that substantially exceeds that of Russia? What exactly is the #%#@ problem???
Victory for Ukraine seems pretty straightforward. Drop an artillery shell on the head of every Russian solider on Ukrainian territory.
If we can't do that, or won't do that, we had better understand why.
Where are the F15 fighter jets promised Ukraine? Have to flown by Ukraine pilots? US has over 2000 F 15’s all trained pilots. Just sit idle. Biden will lose Ukraine and feel for Putin’s nuclear bluff…
Seymour Hersh, who in past years has done some valuable reporting, seems to me to be spouting nonsense in his comments about the Biden administration and Ukraine. For example, he recently wrote that, "[Biden] ignored the history of the allied World War II partnership by describing NATO as 'the strongest military alliance the world has ever known.'" And Hersh is the one claiming that Biden and his advisors are unrealistic!
Remind me never to depend on America for support in a long war. We are a "constant" ally, but only in the worst sense: constantly distracted, constantly second-guessing those who are actually doing the fighting on the frontlines, and constantly dithering when instead we should be giving our friends what they need to win.
I think the bipartisan House of Representatives letter to Secretary Austin is a good start. It argues for no restrictions on use of U.S. weapons against certain targets within Russia, for the training of additional F-16 pilots, and for increased provision of air defense assets, especially Patriots. https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/5.20.24_joint_letter_to_dod_for_urgent_ukraine_aid.pdf
I have some additional suggestions for items Ukraine urgently needs right now -- I know we all do. I also have a few suggestions on military strategy that would not be appropriate to detail in this forum, but which I think would give Ukraine winning chances in this conflict.
The key problem is that if Ukraine has to wait until 2025 to act, it may be too late. I think we all understand that if Trump is elected, he will betray Ukraine in an instant, and Ukrainians will be condemned to another dark age of repression. In addition, President Biden needs a foreign policy victory --he has precious few at the moment. Foreign policy success is almost never a determinant in U.S. presidential elections, but he'll need all the help he can get to win in November, and dithering on Ukraine for another six months won't cut it.
Of course, I lack your expertise, but what you propose seems to me like it's obviously the right thing to do.
I grew up in Kiev, so I have many classmates over there from three schools. Today, one of them posted on Facebook that he was stopped by police on the street and transferred to a military draft representative who was checking on a computer whether he had registered for a draft. Now my other classmates (all 54 year old) discuss who was drafted already and who is going to be drafted. They are typical office people, a lawyer, a finance consultant, the same type as office people in Palo Alto, not suitable for the battlefield. I don't think they would be happy to know that Biden wants them in the trenches to help him win his election in the United States.
Considering that you grew up in Kyiv, why do you spell the city name in the Russian language. The Ukrainians whom I know would be quick to respond that the city's name is Kyiv.
All my English teachers in Kiev from 4th grade (1980) till 10th grade (1987) used the spelling Kiev which was the standard spelling in the Soviet Union at that time. The majority of children in Kiev (~80%) grew up with Russian as their mother tongue rather than Ukrainian. For this reason I am used to the spelling of Kiev as my city and do not see a reason to change it. I do understand Ukrainian but Russian is my native language as well as the native language of the majory of Ukrainian east of 9 west Ukrainian oblasts.
It’s Putin that wants them in the trenches, I think. I don’t agree with Biden’s decision and I hope he changes it but it’s not he that is making war on Ukraine.
Your argument is compelling, but how would the discussion change if an American bomb hit a Russian school, hospital, or apartment building? I’m thinking we also need to consider the next steps.
Amen, professor.
Let me preface my comments with these admissions upfront--I don't know what the right decision is on permitting Ukraine to strike inside Russia with US supplied missiles. I deeply desire complete victory for Ukraine. For a long time, I argued against permitting Ukraine to strike targets within Russia with US missiles because, by empowering Ukraine to do so, the US would have essentially made Ukraine the US's agent in attacking Russia. We are all alive today because we and the USSR/Russian Federation avoided such overt attacks. (With the obvious exceptions of the Cold War shenanigans in which one Soviet/RF plane or ship would fly or sail menacingly close to a US plane or ship.)
I acknowledge Ukraine's current acute need for this flexibility in the battle for Kherson. Like you, I do not think Putin will resort to nuclear or other radiological weapons. The US has make clear to Putin's government what will happen to Russia if they do. But there is another factor to consider when weighing the risks of authorizing Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with US missiles. It sets a dangerous precedent. If we arm Ukraine to target Russia with missiles, what will stop Russia from arming any or all of our enemies to strike inside the US?
If there are counterarguments to this, I'm eager to read them. If I'm misperceiving the risks of allowing Ukraine to strike inside Russia with our weapons, I want to know that. Comments are welcome.
Thank you. I hope Biden changes his mind. 🇺🇦
You write, "For six months, Republican dysfunction in the U.S. Congress delayed approval of a new aid package to Ukraine. "
That is certainly true. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that Europe appears unwilling to defend itself effectively, even though it is considerably richer than Russia. Thus, Europe has to rely on the U.S. And thus, on MAGA Republicans.
As painful as it is, intellectual honesty would seem to require us to admit that Donald Trump may be the politician who has most effectively made the case for ending Europe's dependency on America. It seemed that it was only when Trump started bellowing about maybe leaving NATO that the Europeans finally started doing what a series of American presidents had asked them to do.
Hitting targets in Russia raises all kinds of concerns. Before we move to that we should be asking why we can't effectively hit Russian targets on Ukrainian soil. If we can't produce artillery shells far faster than Russia, why is that? The Ukraine war is now 2 years old. How long does it take to make an artillery shell? Why doesn't Europe have stockpile of artillery shells that substantially exceeds that of Russia? What exactly is the #%#@ problem???
Victory for Ukraine seems pretty straightforward. Drop an artillery shell on the head of every Russian solider on Ukrainian territory.
If we can't do that, or won't do that, we had better understand why.
Where are the F15 fighter jets promised Ukraine? Have to flown by Ukraine pilots? US has over 2000 F 15’s all trained pilots. Just sit idle. Biden will lose Ukraine and feel for Putin’s nuclear bluff…
Mr. Ambassador,
Seymour Hersh, who in past years has done some valuable reporting, seems to me to be spouting nonsense in his comments about the Biden administration and Ukraine. For example, he recently wrote that, "[Biden] ignored the history of the allied World War II partnership by describing NATO as 'the strongest military alliance the world has ever known.'" And Hersh is the one claiming that Biden and his advisors are unrealistic!
How do you see this disagreement?