SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
volodymyr zelenskyy
Where Is the Biden Plan to End the War in Ukraine?
Since President Biden will in any case step down next January, he could try to bequeath to his successor not war, but peace. The clock is ticking, but the American people have not been told what the vision for winning—or ending—this conflict really is.
Aug 02, 2024
Almost 100 days have now passed since the Congress passed $61 billion in emergency funding for Ukraine, a measure that included a condition that required the Biden Administration to present to the legislative body a detailed strategy for continued U.S. support.
When the funding bill was passed with much fanfare on April 23, Section 504, page 32 included the following mandate:
“Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall submit to 18 the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on 20 Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a strategy regarding United States support for Ukraine against aggression by the Russian Federation: Provided, That such strategy shall be multi-year, establish specific and achievable objectives, define and prioritize United States national security interests…”
It is now August and There is still no sign on the part of the Biden Administration of any intention to submit such a strategy to Congress. This inevitably leads to the suspicion that no such strategy in fact exists. It also suggests that without a massive change of mindset within the administration, it is not even possible to hold—let alone make public—serious and honest internal discussions on the subject, as these would reveal the flawed and empty assumptions on which much of present policy is based.
Unfortunately, it seems that the administration’s actual position is to kick this issue down the road until after the presidential election.
This relates first of all to the requirement “to define and prioritize United States national security interests.” No U.S. official has ever seriously addressed the issue of why a Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine that was of no importance whatsoever to the U.S. 40 years ago (when Soviet tank armies stood in the center of Germany, 1,200 miles to the West) should now be such a threat that combating it necessitates $61 billion of U.S. military aid per year, a significant risk of conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia, and a colossal distraction from vital U.S. interests elsewhere.
Instead, the administration, and its European allies, have relied on two arguments. The first is that if Russia is not defeated in Ukraine, it will go on to attack NATO and that this will mean American soldiers going to fight and die in Europe. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of any such Russian intention. Russian threats of escalation and (possibly) minor acts of sabotage have been outgrowths of the war in Ukraine, and intended to deter NATO from intervening directly in that conflict—not actions intended to lay the basis for an invasion of NATO.
Western commentators like to state Russian public ambitions beyond Ukraine as a given fact, but when asked to provide actual statements to this effect, they are unable to do so. Nor, at least judging by Putin’s latest statement, does he intend (or believe it possible) to “wipe Ukraine off the map.” The top official Russian goals include limited territorial gains, Ukrainian neutrality, and Russian language rights in Ukraine—all questions that can legitimately be explored in negotiations.
Moreover, given the acute difficulties that the Russian military has faced in Ukraine, and the Russian weaknesses revealed by that conflict, the idea of them planning to attack NATO seems utterly counter-intuitive. For Russia has been “stopped” in Ukraine. The heroic resistance of the Ukrainian army, backed with Western weapons and money, stopped the Russian army far short of President Putin’s goals when he launched the war. They have severely damaged Russian military prestige, inflicted enormous losses on the Russian military, and as of today, hold more than 80% of their country’s territory.
The Biden administration has issued partly contradictory statements about the purpose of U.S. aid to Ukraine: that it is intended to help Ukraine “win”, and that it is intended to help “strengthen Ukraine at the negotiating table.” They have not however fulfilled their legal obligation to define to Congress what “winning” means, nor why if the war will end in negotiations, these negotiations should not begin now — especially since there is very strong evidence that the Ukrainian military position, and therefore Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, are getting worse, not better.
As Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro have written in response to the latest US despatch of weapons to Ukraine:
“[A]daptation and adjustment do not constitute strategy, and reactive escalation absent a strategy is not sound policy. Escalating U.S. involvement in this conflict—or any conflict—should be guided by an idea about how to bring the war to an end.”
As with U.S. campaigns in Vietnam and elsewhere, the administration and its allies have tried to play the “credibility” card: the argument that it is necessary to defeat Russia in Ukraine because otherwise, China, Iran and other countries will be emboldened to attack the United States or its allies. But like the line about Russian ambitions beyond Ukraine, this is simply an assumption. There is no actual evidence for it at all.
It can, with equal or greater validity, be assumed that the governments of these countries will make up their minds according to calculations of their own interests and the military balance in their own regions.
The final administration line of argument is a moral one: that “Russian aggression must not be rewarded” and that “Ukrainian territorial integrity must be restored.” Since, however, any realistic negotiations towards a peace settlement will have to involve de facto recognition of Russian territorial gains (not de jure recognition, which the Russians do not expect and even the Chinese will not grant), this statement would seem to rule out even the idea of talks. On the face of it therefore, the Biden administration would appear to be asking the American people to spend indefinitely tens of billions of dollars a year on an endless war for an unachievable goal.
If this is a mistaken picture of the administration’s position, then once again, it has a formal obligation under the bill passed by Congress in April to tell the American people and their elected representatives what their goals in Ukraine in fact are. Then everyone will be able to reach an informed judgment on whether they are attainable, and worth $61 billion a year in American money.
Unfortunately, it seems that the administration’s actual position is to kick this issue down the road until after the presidential election. Thereafter, either a Harris administration will have to draw up new plans, or a Trump administration will do so. But given the length of time it takes a new administration to settle in and develop new policies, this means that we could not expect a strategy on Ukraine to emerge for eight months at best.
If the Ukrainians can hold roughly their present lines, then this approach could be justifiable in U.S. domestic political terms (though not to the families of the Ukrainian soldiers who will die in the meantime). There is however a significant risk that given the military balance on the ground, and even with continued aid, Ukraine during this time will suffer a major defeat. Washington would then have to choose between a truly humiliating failure or direct intervention, which would expose the American people to truly hideous risks.
There is an alternative. Since President Biden will in any case step down next January, he could take a risk and try to bequeath to his successor not war, but peace. In terms of domestic politics, to open negotiations with Russia now would deprive Donald Trump and JD Vance of a campaigning position, and would spare a future Democrat administration (if elected) from a very difficult and internally divisive decision.
The first step in this direction is for the Biden administration clearly to formulate its goals in Ukraine, and — as required by law — to submit these goals to the American people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Zelenskyy: If Trump Has Plan to End the Ukraine War 'He Should Tell Us Today'
"We want to understand whether in November we will have the powerful support of the U.S., or we'll be all alone," Zelenskyy said.
Jul 03, 2024
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in an interview published Wednesday that presumptive Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump should reveal his secret plan to quickly end the war in Ukraine.
The request came following Trump's claim during last week's U.S. presidential debate that he would "have the war settled" by the time he took office on January 20, if elected in November. The former president has claimed repeatedly that he would meet with Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin and end the war "within 24 hours" or within "one day."
Trump hasn't revealed details of his proclaimed plan, leading Zelenskyy to express concern that it would be a deal favorable to Russia.
"If Trump knows how to finish this war, he should tell us today," Zelenskyy told Bloomberg Television in the Wednesday interview. "If there are risks to Ukrainian independence, if we lose statehood—we want to be ready for this, we want to know."
"We want to understand whether in November we will have the powerful support of the U.S., or we'll be all alone," Zelenskyy added.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy tells @BloombergTV Donald Trump should come forward with his plan to quickly end the war with Russia, warning that any proposal must avoid violating the nation’s sovereignty https://t.co/GeByOh6x5L pic.twitter.com/VQKchCFtyO
— Bloomberg (@business) July 3, 2024
Though Trump has not disclosed his plan to quickly end the war, reports indicate that it involves ceding Ukranian territory to Russia. He's said privately that he would pressure Ukraine to give up land, The Washington Postreported in April. Last week, Trump was said to broadly approve of a plan written by two of his key advisers to reach a cease-fire agreement based on prevailing battle lines, according toReuters.
Ukrainian officials have rejected that idea: Putin violated international law in invading Ukraine, so Russia can't be ceded the territory it's illegally gained, they argue.
Trump, who was president from 2017 until 2021, has for many years made fond, if inconsistent, remarks about Putin, even calling him a "genius" not long after the Russian president's launch of a full-scale incursion into Ukraine in 2022. Trump's history with Zelenskyy, on the other hand, is a complicated one: A phone call between the two world leaders was at the center of Trump's first impeachment proceedings in 2019 and early 2020.
Foreign policy experts have expressed concern that if Trump returns to power, he will abandon Ukraine. Many Republicans don't support continued military aid to the country, and party representatives delayed and obstructed the latest package, though it did ultimately pass, along with military aid for Israel and Taiwan, in late April.
Trump's remarks during last week's debate did little to reassure critics who say he's weak in his support for Ukraine. He criticized President Joe Biden for spending profligately on the war, which he said Ukraine was "not winning," and implied that Democrats were in the thrall of Zelenskyy.
"Every time that Zelenskyy comes to this country, he walks away with $60 billion," Trump said. "He's the greatest salesman ever."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICC Orders Arrest of Russian Officials Accused of Directing Attacks on Civilians
"These ICC warrants mark another crucial step towards justice," said Amnesty International's Ukraine director. "Their issuance helps rebuild trust in international law and the institutions that uphold it."
Jun 25, 2024
The International Criminal Court on Tuesday issued arrest warrants for Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Russian Armed Forces Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov for allegedly ordering attacks on civilians during the ongoing invasion and occupation of Ukraine.
The ICC announced that its Pre-Trial Chamber II issued the warrants for Shoigu and Gerasimov for the alleged war crimes of "directing attacks at civilian objects" and "causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects," as well as the crime against humanity of "inhumane acts."
"Pre-Trial Chamber II considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the two suspects bear responsibility for missile strikes carried out by the Russian armed forces against the Ukrainian electric infrastructure from at least October 10, 2022 until at least March 9, 2023," the court said. "During this time frame, a large number of strikes against numerous electric power plants and substations were carried out by the Russian armed forces in multiple locations in Ukraine."
The warrants were issued in response to an application by ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, under whose tenure the tribunal has also ordered the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for allegedly abducting Ukrainian children and transporting them to Russia.
"Today's decision reflects my office's continued commitment to give meaningful effect to the protection that the law provides to civilians and protected objects," Khan said in a statement. "As reflected in the decision of the chamber, one of the core objectives of international humanitarian law is the protection of civilians in armed conflicts."
"All those engaged in such conflicts must follow the baseline rules of conduct reflected in international humanitarian law," he continued. "This law provides protection to all, and gives equal value to all lives. This is the starting point, the foundational principle that guides our work at the International Criminal Court."
"As I have repeatedly emphasized, no individual, anywhere in the world, should feel they can act with impunity," Khan added. "And no person, anywhere in the world, should feel they are deserving of less protection than others."
While Russia's Security Council dismissed the warrants as "just shooting the breeze," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy applauded the ICC's move.
"Every criminal involved in the planning and execution of these strikes must know that justice will be served," he said. "And we do hope to see them behind bars."
Neither Russia nor Ukraine is a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC.
Nor is the United States, which welcomed the warrants for Shoigu and Gerasimov—even as the Biden administration condemns Khan's effort to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes including extermination and forced starvation committed during the ongoing assault on Gaza. Khan is also seeking to arrest three leaders of Hamas, which led the October 7 attack on Israel, for alleged extermination, rape, and other crimes.
Although Israel is also not an ICC member state, the court's jurisdiction expands to Palestine. Israel's conduct in Gaza is also the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case brought by South Africa.
While the Biden administration supports the ICC's prosecution of Russian leaders, the Pentagon has helped shield them from ICC accountability, fearing such a reckoning could set a precedent allowing the tribunal to prosecute Americans for alleged war crimes committed in the numerous countries the U.S. has invaded, occupied, or bombed in recent years.
Human rights defenders welcomed the warrants for Shoigu and Gerasimov, which Human Rights Watch said "signal that no one, no matter how high their rank, can escape justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine."
"It gives hope to victims of Russia's aggression against Ukraine that those responsible will be held accountable."
Amnesty International Ukraine director Veronika Velch said in a statement, "As Russia continues to conduct missile strikes that are crippling Ukraine's critical civilian infrastructure, the ICC has once again displayed its willingness to bring the most senior alleged perpetrators to justice."
"These ICC warrants mark another crucial step towards justice. Their issuance helps rebuild trust in international law and the institutions that uphold it," she continued. "It gives hope to victims of Russia's aggression against Ukraine that those responsible will be held accountable, no matter how high ranking. We will work to ensure that all those indicted by the ICC are arrested as soon as possible and that justice is done and is victim-focused."
"The ICC's arrest warrants rely on states carrying them out," Velch stressed. "Therefore, the international community must increase its efforts to ensure that—along with other Russian officials and military commanders sought by the ICC for trial including Vladimir Putin—Mr. Shoigu and Mr. Gerasimov are immediately arrested and surrendered to the ICC if they leave Russia."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular