UKRAINE - WORDS AND DEEDS

Biden Must Compromise To Forge A Bi-Partisan Coalition Supporting Ukraine

This account of the inability of Europeans and the US to produce enough artillery shells to appropriately supply Ukraine’s war effort is a sobering reminder of the distance separating words and deeds. It has also exposed the weakened state of European and US readiness to wage war.

Ukraine needs 250,000 artillery rounds per month, 3 million rounds per year. However, 12 companies in 10 E.U. countries that make such artillery shells can currently produce only 650,000 a year — and that includes other types of ammunition that are in short supply, including 120-millimeter rounds needed for German Leopard 2 tanks and 105-millimeter rounds needed for the older Leopard 1 tanks.

The US does not make many 155-millimeter shells used in artillery guns. It is trying to increase its own production from about 14,400 rounds a month to 20,000 a month this spring, with plans to be making 90,000 rounds a month by 2025.

What exactly is the purpose of spending money on armies and air forces if you cannot even supply the ammunition and parts necessary to wage an effective war?

I wholeheartedly endorse supporting Ukraine’s war effort for the pragmatic reason that it has given us a great education about our lack of preparedness to fight a sustained battle. It has also exposed the vulnerability of non-stealthy air power that we used at will in Iraq and Afghanistan to the anti-aircraft missiles of a first or second-tier opponent. Russia’s airforce has not be able to conduct many operations over Ukrainian airspace, and its air superiority has been negated, causing it to rely upon its superiority in artillery and manpower.

These lessons are worth 10 times the aid we’ve provided to Ukraine.

Also, our resistance against Putin has sent a strong signal to China about potential consequences for an invasion of Taiwan or occupation of islands held by the Philippines, Japan and other allies to threaten shipping in the South China Sea. Weakness in Ukraine will beget war in the Pacific.

Russia’s invasion has spurred Sweden and Finland to join NATO and forced France, Germany, Italy, and other NATO members to, at least, pledge to increase their military spending. Putin’s invasion delivered what four years of pleading by President Trump were unable to accomplish.

Which brings us to the fault lines in the political debate about the US involvement in Ukraine.

The dividing line painted by the media is that you either fully support President Biden’s aid requests for Ukraine or you must be an apologist for Vladimir Putin and a supporter of Russian aggression. I contend that the debate is more complicated than this simple dichotomy.

Historical Background

My nuanced view is the following:

In 1994, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum. This was later formalized in treaty documents that essentially offered Ukraine a commitment to protect them against invasion by Russia in exchange for surrendering the remnants of the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons arsenal remaining on its territory.

Since Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, Russia has violated the terms of this treaty. Therefore, we have a treaty obligation to provide assistance to Ukraine.

In 2008 President Bush should not have invited Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO, over the objections of France and Germany. He should have quietly provided these nations with equipment and training to strengthen their armed forces. We would not risk nuclear war to defend Ukraine and Georgia so why invite them into NATO and insult Vladimir Putin? That was a dumb idea that provoked Putin.

In 2014 President Obama did not provide substantial military aid and training to Ukraine after Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas regions. He just imposed weak sanctions. Putin took notice and prepared for the next steps.

Putin did not invade Ukraine during the Presidency of Donald Trump. This fact alone disproves the myth that Trump supports Putin, and is his stooge. If that were true, then Putin would have invaded Ukraine during Trump’s term in office. Instead, Putin launched his follow-up invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 because he thought that Biden was weak, and he did not believe that he would oppose the pacifist and mercantilist sentiments of France and Germany to just get along with Russia and tolerate the invasion.

After all, did NATO provide Ukraine with hundreds of thousands of artillery shells and thousands of artillery systems and mortars during 2021 when Biden began his term? Were Ukrainian pilots being trained on NATO fighter jets, tanks, anti-aircraft systems and other equipment that they would need to repel a Russian invasion? Putin was observing our actions, and he concluded that the US and its NATO allies were not deeply committed to the defense of Ukraine. Words are no substitute for action.

Biden has done a terrible job with Ukraine. From the date of the invasion he should have brought hundreds of Ukrainian pilots and military personnel over to the US and to NATO countries to train on the aircraft and weapons systems that they would need for their defence. Instead, he wasted time, hesitated, and grudgingly changed his mind about the amount and kinds of weapons to provide. Instead of viewing this war as a chance to test our weapons in the field against a worthy opponent, we balked. Instead of giving priority to military spending, expanding production lines of weapons manufacturers, Biden is focused on forgiving student loans and pandering to his most Progressive constituencies.

Oversight on Aid to Ukraine

To forge a bi-partisan alliance, Biden should make concessions to Kevin McCarthy on the debt limit negotiations to clear the path for a consensus supporting Ukraine’s war effort. The best way for Biden and the Democrats to prove the importance of supporting Ukraine is to carve out cuts in their Green Projects and other programs to offsett whatever is being sent to Ukraine. You discover how valuable something truly is by the value of what you’re willing to sacrifice.

The other way to get Republican support is for President Biden to get tougher with Germany, France, and Italy to shoulder a greater percentage of the burden. Ukraine should be getting the bulk of its aid from its European neighbors, not the US. It’s a lot more difficult for the President to explain to American taxpayers why aid to Ukraine is a critical for our security while taxpayers in Europe, who are closer to the conflict, don’t appear to feel the same urgency.

Aid to Ukraine is expensive, and many of the Democrats’ domestic priorities are not as important as aid for the preservation of liberty and signaling resolve against threats by our enemies in China, Russia, and Iran. It’s time for actions to speak louder than words.