Connect with us

conflict

With Only Months Left In Term, Biden Is Starting To Run Out Of Options In Russia-Ukraine War

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jake Smith

 

As the clock ticks down to January — the end of President Joe Biden’s sole term — the Biden-Harris administration is trying to figure out how to aid Ukraine against Russia with limited and dwindling options.

The Russia-Ukraine war has dragged on for more than two years, and though the Biden administration has devoted over $175 billion in economic and military aid to help Ukraine, it has done little to shift the tides in Kyiv’s favor. The Biden administration, unlikely to receive any more funding for aid from Congress, is looking at alternative choices including loosening weapons restrictions and allowing Ukraine to strike further inside of Russia, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The new policy would only apply to European and other Western weapons, not U.S. systems, according to multiple reports. Secretary of State Antony Blinken hinted on Wednesday that such a move was on the table and strongly being considered.

Lifting the restrictions would represent a major shift in approach from the Biden administration, which has been wary of allowing Ukraine to use Western-provided weapons for deep strikes inside Russia up to this point.

But Ukraine is likely to want more from the Biden administration than being allowed to use European weapons for long-range strikes. Specifically, Ukraine wants to use American-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike Russia, given the high quality and range of the system, though the administration may be more unlikely to grant that request.

Besides loosening weapons restrictions, the administration has few other options. Though Biden was able to sign off on a congressionally approved $60 billion aid package for Ukraine in April, Congress isn’t expected to grant any more funding for the war between now and January, limiting the amount of assistance the administration can provide.

The Russia-Ukraine war has largely stalled out, with neither side conceding substantial territory to the other, although Ukrainian forces have recently made a surprising incursion into southern Russia and captured hundreds of miles of territory.

“They see this as part of their strategy to defend themselves, to develop leverage,” the senior administration told the WSJ.

Behind closed doors, however, administration officials are worried that Ukraine is dedicating too many forces to the incursion and stretching thin its forces trying to hold the front line against Russia, according to the WSJ. Russian forces have also begun a counteroffensive against Ukrainians spearheading an incursion, risking further escalation in the war.

Biden’s top aides realize the odds that Ukraine can secure a military victory against Russia by January are near zero, according to the WSJ. The Biden administration is not pressuring Kyiv to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, even though some lawmakers and national security experts believe that is the only way to end the war.

Instead, the administration is choosing to let Kyiv dictate war plans and “improve Ukraine’s strategic position to the greatest extent possible between now and the end of the term,” one senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the matter, told the WSJ.

The Biden administration has been under scrutiny for its handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, with critics fearing that there is no strategy to end the war or push Ukraine toward a military victory, which itself seems unlikely. The U.S. has slowly become more involved in the war but it has done little to move the needle while Ukraine’s manpower continues to be exhausted.

The administration’s strategy “sounds an awful lot like a recipe for another endless war [because it is] unable to send enough weapons to make a decisive difference on the battlefield, and they don’t have a clear sense of what the endgame should be,” Rachel Rizzo, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the WSJ.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

armed forces

The Case for Peter Hegseth — Time To Try Something Different

Published on

By S.L. Nelson

Success in today’s world favors smart, creative leaders who can quickly adapt and make decisions that benefit their organizations. President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense marks a significant shift from his first administration.

Hegseth, with fewer ties to the traditional defense establishment, is expected to transform the department in two vital areas: First, he will expose generals and admirals who act out of self-interest; second, he will refocus the military on its core function of lethality — the use or threat of deadly force to win wars and deter enemies.

Hegseth’s appointment threatens senior military officers who are more concerned with their legacy than with mission accomplishment. These officers feel susceptible to changes that will threaten their carefully curated norms. Many current leaders have avidly promoted DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and CRT (Critical Race Theory), and Hegseth’s threat to remove these programs stokes their fears. These leaders have promoted subordinates who share their views, creating a cycle of making leaders in their own image. To break this cycle, Hegseth will also need to ensure that general officers are held accountable for the officers they promote. These actions will ensure that his and President Trump’s ‘Warrior Boards’ achieve their desired effect and weed out the right leaders.

Civilian leaders and politicians should also scrutinize the retired officers who placed these generals in their positions in the first place. If multiple legacies are at risk, flag officers will develop and implement more objective metrics for recommending general officer positions.

Hegseth’s leadership will refocus the Department of Defense on its core purpose. By removing ineffective leaders who prioritize social theories over military effectiveness, he will eliminate a major obstacle. These changes will encourage accountability and forward-thinking approaches. A clear message will echo from the top down that adapting to change means manning, training, and equipping the military to win wars, rather than allowing military officers to succumb to the self-loathing which places individual egos above selfless service to the country.

Adapting to change is also the responsibility of military commanders. Officers command Army organizations. It is significant that in some branches of the United States Army, up to half the officers do not desire to compete for Battalion Command.  Many reasons include burnout and the threat of investigations that are launched ad nauseam in a zero-defect environment. The Army cannot be effective if officers do not want to command. Commanders hesitate to enforce standards in this environment because an unhappy subordinate can ruin their career with a retaliatory allegation. If an investigation is launched, commanders worry that general officers will dispose of these allegations negatively rather than appear lenient. Secretary Hegseth will support his commanders because his commander in chief supports him.

Not supporting your subordinate commanders has vital consequences for national security. A glaring example of a lack of support for the Department of Defense is demonstrated by the contempt of the Chinese in answering Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s phone calls and his apparent indifference to it. “I think we’ll continue … to stress how important it is, and hopefully Minister Wei will schedule that call,” Austin told CNN.

One can hardly imagine Hegseth having the same attitude as Secretary Austin. Trump proved during his first term, with sanctions and recently renewed threats of another trade war with China, that his government will support its Defense Department by imposing harsh sanctions and other measures. This whole-of-government approach will allow Hegseth to focus on the military and make its interactions with foreign militaries more effective.

In fact, the Trump transition team is already laying the groundwork for forward-leaning tariff plans through legislation. Because legislation will make it harder to have subsequent administrations revoke these actions, the Defense Department will benefit from a more permanent government position when it comes to the exercise of economic power. Hegseth will, thus, occupy an even stronger position to engage with military threats to the United States with supporting economic policies that are not just unilateral executive actions by the Trump administration.

President-elect Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth frees the Department of Defense from being anchored in the change dynamics of the past. Current and future change undercurrents cannot be managed with legacy processes. Leaders must adapt and be free to act outside of institutional norms, especially those tied to a selfish cycle of self-promotion and government social experiments rather than the effectiveness of the Department of Defense.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

S.L. Nelson has served from the tactical to strategic level as a military officer. His views are his own and do not represent the position of the U.S. DoD.

Continue Reading

conflict

Russia Hammers Ukrainian Energy Grid In Retaliation For Long-Range Missile Use

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Jaryn Crouson

Russia launched a massive drone attack targeting Ukrainian energy sources early Thursday morning in retaliation for the use of American-made long range missiles, according to NBC.

The attack left over 700,000 homes without power in Ukraine as winter sets in, according to NBC. Russian President Vladimir Putin said the attack was a response to Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, which President Joe Biden authorized Nov. 17. The decision to allow the use of the missiles by Biden puzzled national security experts who cited enormous risks with little reward.

“Suffice it to say, this is a clear attempt to box in the incoming Trump administration into backing Ukraine without conditions or limits, and it’s a total affront to the democratic transition of power,” former CIA official Michael DiMino previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation in response to the move by Biden.

The strikes started late Wednesday night and lasted for nine hours, according to NBC. Officials told NBC this was the 11th attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak accused Russia of using “terror” tactics in targeting the energy grid, according to CBS Thursday.

The Russia-Ukraine war has raged on for more than two years, with casualty counts nearing a million total as of October, according to the New York Times. Both sides have recently been scrambling for ground as President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office in January, promising a swift end to the conflict.

Trump recently tapped retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg to head the peace efforts in the region. He previously served as the National Security Council’s chief of staff and as national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence.

On Nov. 7, Trump warned Putin not to escalate the conflict with Ukraine, reportedly reminding him of the sizable U.S. military presence in Europe, according to The Washington Post.

The Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministries did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending

X