US strategy in Ukraine is predicated on the idea that the war there will end or dramatically de-escalate within this year. But what if that doesn’t happen? President Joe Biden’s administration has done well in managing this conflict so far. However, the longer the war drags on, the harder it will be for Biden to manage its political dimensions, and the more pressure they will put on US policy around the world.
Ukraine’s prospects revolve around its long-awaited spring offensive. The Ukrainians mostly held off Russia’s furious winter offensive, holding – barely – a part of the besieged Bakhmut in the east. Now it’s Kiev’s turn to strike.
Preparatory operations are underway as Ukraine mitigates Russia’s logistics and investigates its defenses. It’s anyone’s guess where the big blow will come – perhaps in the Donbass, or rather, more likely, in the south, in an attempt to cut Russia’s land bridge to the occupied Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea. Either way, the US hopes that the attack, by changing the course of the war, will create a path to peace.
Strategy
Publicly and privately, top US officials have floated the administration’s theory of victory: the idea that a successful, but not overly successful, Ukrainian offensive will lead to a de-escalation of the war or even a negotiated political settlement. To make this offensive possible, Washington has delivered a front-load of military aid to Kiev, rushing to give it the lion’s share of the $45 billion package passed by the US Congress late last year.
This strategy involves a mixture of pessimism and optimism. Pessimism, in that U.S. officials increasingly doubt Ukraine can liberate all the territory Russia has seized since 2014. Optimism, in that Washington hopes Kiev can claim enough territory to make the country economically viable and militarily defensible, while putting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military under enough pressure to force him to seek peace. Which, in turn, will reduce Ukraine’s demands for US aid, allowing America’s defense industrial base to turn to other priorities.
This strategy represents a logical attempt to reconcile conflicting imperatives—the need to prevent a Ukrainian defeat while also avoiding a wider, more dangerous war. It also faces real – and potentially insurmountable – challenges.
As Daniel Drezner writes, America seeks the golden balance. Ukraine needs to do well enough to be able to negotiate from a position of strength, but not so well that it thinks it doesn’t need to negotiate at all. Washington must simultaneously convince Putin that it risks losing all its gains — and perhaps its power — if the war continues. He does not, however, want to see Putin so desperate that he lashes out, or a China that concludes it must bolster support for an ally at risk of crushing defeat. That sweet spot may exist, but it won’t be easy to find.
Complications
Now, other complications are emerging. The US press is full of reports of Ukrainian ammunition shortages, depleted air defenses and other potentially serious weaknesses. Kyiv has consistently exceeded expectations. Its top management remains quite optimistic. But no one can rule out the possibility that this attack will bring moderate profits, while at the same time having a very high price.
Putin, for his part, has little incentive to move conveniently toward US strategy. Yes, his military continues to underperform. If Ukraine advances significantly this spring, it will be because Russian forces bled to death in fruitless winter offensives.
However, Putin’s winning theory is that he can outlast Ukraine and its friends, perhaps because America’s attention will eventually be drawn elsewhere. The more Ukraine’s vulnerabilities are exposed, the more Putin’s self-confidence will be boosted. And the more Washington makes clear how long it takes for the war to end, the more likely Putin is to drag it out.
Dilemmas
The longer the conflict drags on, the more vexing the dilemmas will become for Biden. Financing the war effort in Ukraine will become more difficult. Those inside the US who argue that a deadlocked “territorial dispute” merely distracts America from the real threat posed by China will be strengthened. Bureaucratic wrangling will fester as the Pentagon is asked to do too much with too few resources. The US may be faced with a choice between cutting aid to Ukraine and taking measures that Biden has resisted, such as providing Kiev with cluster munitions and advanced fighter jets or invoking the Defense Material Production Act to stimulating production in the industrial base.
So far, the Biden administration has proceeded as if it can give Ukraine the help it needs while adequately preparing for a looming conflict with China while making only marginal increases in the defense budget.
This strategy has always been a gamble. The longer this war goes on, the riskier it will become. If Biden wants to win a long battle in Ukraine while reducing the possibility of the US losing in the Pacific, he will have to start rearming the US military at a pace reminiscent of a period of war alert. If it chooses not to, it may have to decide which geopolitical priority — defeating Russia or containing China — it should sacrifice.
Perhaps the conflict in Ukraine will end within Washington’s timetable. Biden, however, needs to start planning now for what will happen if things don’t turn out that way.
Source: Capital