Although Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to Washington was one for the history books, historians are likely to concentrate less on the Churchill comparisons than on the trip's practical outcome, which was, in a word, disappointing.
John Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Council, said yesterday that "the United States was committed to providing the equipment that Ukraine needs." (NYT.) In a modern war, one might think that would include battle tanks, fighter jets and long-range precision missiles. But these, which Zelensky asked for, the U.S. denied.
The Biden administration persists in refusing long-range missiles — ATACMS, with a range of nearly 200 miles — for fear that Ukraine might begin striking Russia proper. (In other words, what Russia has been doing to Ukraine.) As the theory goes, that could compel Vladimir Putin to "widen the war."
But widen it where? Against NATO? Putin isn't that crazy. "The administration continues to overestimate the risk of escalation and underestimate Ukraine’s cleverness and innovative ways of fighting," says Frederick Hodges, the former top U.S. Army commander in Europe.
He's right of course. The administration fretted for months about sending HIMARS rocket artillery. It finally did, and Putin did nothing.
The equivalent will play out with America's Patriot missile defense system. The fretting is over, the Patriot will be on its way, and Putin's reaction has been nothing more — to quote — than: "An antidote will always be found. This is simply prolonging the conflict — that’s it." Against ATACMS, he'd say the same.
As for battle tanks and F-16 fighter jets, the Pentagon protests that either Ukraine already has enough from other allies, or that our tanks and jets would take Ukrainians too long to learn. Yet the Pentagon is also predicting a long war — is it not?
As the shipments of HIMARS and the Patriot battery demonstrated, the Biden administration could always come around on the other armaments. Notes the Times: "The United States has repeatedly said there are weapons it will not send to Ukraine to battle Russia’s invading forces. But as the last 10 months of war have shown, the limits of U.S. support have shifted in Ukraine’s favor, and Mr. Zelensky may yet get what he wants."
Better sooner than later. Putin has shown no reluctance to widen the war's brutality — murdering, deporting and freezing women and children — and yet the U.S. hesitates in supplying everything the defender needs, since that could upset the butchering dictator. As he worked to supply Great Britain in 1940, did FDR worry about making Hitler mad?
Ukraine can win this war — and with the proper equipment, it can probably win it this spring. Opposing that view is Sen. Chris Murphy, who said that "Putin is never going to meaningfully come to the table unless he has seen in real terms where his power stops. And so that means you have to be perhaps willing to fund a stalemate for a period of time."
A stalemate to accomplish what? Bring Putin to the table to achieve what? Only one settlement is acceptable: Russia pulls out of Ukraine. In that, there is nothing to negotiate. That means this war will be decided on the battlefield. And there, President Zelensky is owed everything he asks for.