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
US Approval of Long-Range Missiles Called 'Very Big Step' Towards World War III
One antiwar critic ripped Biden's permission for Ukraine to fire the powerful weapons on Russian targets as "utterly unhinged."
Nov 17, 2024
While neocons from both sides of the proverbial political aisle welcomed what some described as President Joe Biden's "long overdue" decision Sunday to allow Ukrainian forces to strike deep inside Russia with U.S.-supplied long-range missiles, antiwar voices sounded the alarm on what one senior Kremlin official called "a very big step towards the start of World War III."
"Biden has for the first time allowed Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to strike deep inside Russia," comedian, podcaster, and antiwar writer Lee Camp wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. "Apparently the Dems want WWIII before they leave office. Utterly unhinged."
President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to take office in 63 days, has vowed to quickly end the nearly 1,000-day war, which Russia started in February 2022 with a massive invasion of its smaller neighbor amid significant NATO provocations.
The New York Timesreported that the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS)—which has a range of 190 miles—will likely first be deployed against Russian and recently arrived North Korean troops in the Kursk region of western Russia, where Ukrainian forces have seized a sizable swath of Russian territory.
"Strikes with U.S. missiles deep into Russian regions will inevitably entail a serious escalation, which threatens to lead to much more serious consequences."
The Times said Biden dropped his previous reservations over allowing Ukraine to use the missiles for fear of Moscow's retaliation due to "the sheer audacity of Russia's decision to throw North Korean troops at Ukrainian lines."
Earlier this year, Biden quietly gave Kyiv the green light to carry out limited cross-border strikes near Kharkiv with shorter-range missiles as Russian forces menaced Ukraine's second-largest city.
Taking their cues from Biden, Britain and France on Sunday also dropped their objections to Ukraine using long-range offensive missiles provided by the two countries to attack targets inside Russia.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday: "Today, many in the media are talking about the fact that we have received permission to take appropriate actions. But blows are not inflicted with words. Such things are not announced. The rockets will speak for themselves."
In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the U.S. and its allies that approval for Ukrainian attacks with Western long-range missiles "will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries."
Russian officials responded to Biden's move with warnings of serious repercussions.
"Strikes with U.S. missiles deep into Russian regions will inevitably entail a serious escalation, which threatens to lead to much more serious consequences," said Leonid Slutsky, who chairs a key foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, according toReuters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
Most Popular