“Biden’s Most Urgent Mission”
According to David Ignatius, last week Joe Biden “assumed A few smart steps by identifying the goals and limits of the West in the war in Ukraine. For example, the US president detailed his approach to the Ukraine issue in an article in the New York Times.
“Instead of talking nonsense about a complete military victory over the Russian invaders, he said that the goal of the United States is peace through negotiations – and he cleverly formulated this goal in the words of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. it ends only with the help of diplomacy,” the columnist wrote. The Washington Post.
The US leader is sending “a powerful rocket-propelled artillery system known as HIMARS” to Kiev to halt Russia’s advance in eastern Ukraine, and “could strike Russian targets with the devastating power of a precision airstrike”. At the same time, Biden explained that the United States is supplying weapons to Ukraine, not only to help on the battlefield, but also so that Kiev can achieve “the strongest possible position at the negotiating table”. At the same time, he stressed that the United States “does not encourage or allow Ukraine to attack beyond its borders.”
“These messages, supported at briefings by senior administration officials this week, mark a change of tone in the Washington war debate,” Ignatius said.
According to him, if after “Russia’s failures” at the beginning of military special operations in the West they talked about “complete victory” on the battlefield, now it has become clear that the conflict in Ukraine will be longer. According to the columnist, this became particularly evident after Zelensky’s last video speech to the Luxembourg parliament. The Ukrainian leader said that the front line stretches for more than 1,000 kilometers and that Russia has taken control of about 20% of Ukraine – almost all of Donbas.
The Washington Post columnist believes Biden proved to be a “wartime leader” and received “deserved praise” when he mobilized his allies to arm Ukraine and “stop the Russian invasion”.
“Biden’s most pressing task was to contain the panicked desire for peace among some European allies, who were concerned about the cost of the protracted conflict. “While European leaders have calmed down this week by imposing an embargo on Russian offshore oil, Germany has agreed to provide Ukraine with strong air defenses and tanks.”
He believes that the Ukrainian conflict will be long and tiring. Military historian Rick Atkinson told the columnist he saw a resemblance between the Ukrainian conflict and the American Revolutionary War, with the standoff turning into an “eight-year stalemate” and the American rebels eventually winning “largely due to fatigue from the British and French.” intervene.”
“The battle usually comes down to which of the combatants shows the supremacy of will. In that case, the stalemate would give Ukraine time to determine whether it has the will to outlast the Russians until politically acceptable conditions arise. In the meantime, we can hope that Russia as a threat and as a global player will be greatly reduced,” he said.
“Biden rightly insists that only Ukrainians who fought and died so bravely can decide how this war ends,” Ignatius said.
“Dangerous Confusion”
Geopolitics expert Francis Sempa disagrees with the Washington Post columnist and is confident that Biden’s decision to send the HIMARS MLRS to Ukraine threatens with unforeseen consequences for international security. on this he Wrote In an article for American Thinker magazine.
“It’s become commonplace for Biden to say something in the White House and “withdraw” his White House statements the next day, soon the President approves the “withdrawal.” If the American people think this is all confusing, what do our allies and enemies think? And in the midst of a war, such confusion can be downright dangerous,” Sempa wrote.
As an example, the US leader stated on May 30 that the US “would not send missile systems to Ukraine that could hit Russia”, thus refusing the request of Zelensky and other senior Ukrainian officials. This statement immediately drew criticism.
The next day, administration officials announced that the United States would supply medium-range missiles, but not long-range missiles. In this way, according to the expert, the US authorities tried to simultaneously show their support for Kiev and allay Russia’s fears that Ukraine might attack its own territory.
“After that, the administration published an article in mainstream newspapers, allegedly written by the president: “I decided to provide the Ukrainians with better missile systems and ammunition that would allow them to hit key targets more accurately. On the battlefield in Ukraine.” . Of course, nothing prevents Ukrainian forces armed with these missiles from hitting targets in Russia,” he said.
He believes that such actions of the US authorities increase the threat of Russian use of nuclear weapons.
“How it all ends can only be guessed,” the expert concluded.
Source: Gazeta
