American Aid, Constancy of Unconsciousness and Blindness to the Future
Why There Can Be No Full Relief
Street Art, Kyiv, Podil, March 21, 2024. Picture: Nicolas Tenzer
The vote by the US House of Representatives in favor of a new 61-billion aid package for Ukraine—not just military aid—will ultimately leave a bitter taste in retrospect. It’s been said over and over again: if it hadn’t been for cheap political calculations that led to it being blocked for around five months, thousands of Ukrainian lives would have been saved. Tens of thousands more would also have been saved if the Allies had given Ukraine a range of weapons sooner. Almost all of them would have been saved if we had intervened directly on February 24, 2022, as I had suggested. And even for the recent period, when Speaker Mike Johnson blocked the House of Representatives before his miraculous “conversion”, other weapons could still have been given directly by the US administration without going through Congress. There are also responsibilities on the side of the Biden administration, although the bulk of them certainly come from Trump Republicans.
Of course, the overriding feeling most often expressed is one of relief: at last, the Ukrainians will be able to receive additional anti-missile systems that will protect civilian populations, as well as infrastructure, from Russian strikes whose sole aim is to kill, kill, destroy, destroy, always as much as possible. They should also receive weapons and ammunition that will enable Ukrainian soldiers to better defend themselves, and not at the ratio of a Ukrainian shell to a Russian shell, against attacks by Moscow’s troops. But this will not put an end to the deaths of hundreds and, it is to be feared, thousands more Ukrainian soldiers who will perish solely as a result of Russian attacks—but also of the Allies’ determination not to go through with them.
Above all, this new aid must not give the Europeans an excuse to lower their guard, both in terms of current arms deliveries, which must continue to accelerate—the Ukrainians can never have too many anti-missile missile systems, shells—it is hoped that more than a million additional shells will soon have been acquired by the Europeans for donation to Kyiv—and, even more decisively for the future, long-range missiles and fighter aircraft.
Reconquer: the missing link
If we had to sum up the situation, we could say that this American aid solves, at least momentarily, the first two parts of the equation: firstly, it will enable Ukraine to be better covered with anti-missile systems; secondly, it will give the Ukrainians on the front line some breathing space, enabling them to respond better to Russian attacks. In short, it will 1) protect; 2) halt the Russian advance (which, let’s not forget, has been very weak in recent months, despite much greater resources). So there’s a third word: expel the enemy from Ukraine, in other words, reconquer. And this is something that American aid, at last granted, will do little or nothing to achieve.
So, while some, using big words, spoke of a “historic vote” or a “decisive vote”, I remain more measured. Admittedly, I’m delighted by this vote, which is indeed a form of relief from the worst that seemed to be in store—even if, without doubt, the Russian army would not have had the means, at least in the short term, to take Kyiv, let alone Lviv or Odessa, or even Kharkiv. But it’s not a vote that offers a long-term perspective, because it's not directly aimed at victory for Ukraine, but only at preserving its still precarious existence. It corresponds to the old, familiar strategy: the West, and above all the Americans and Germans, certainly consider that they cannot afford for Ukraine to lose; they do not have a strategy—and therefore, upstream, a clear desire—for it to win, still less for Russia to be defeated.
It was reckless of GOP politicians to block aid—a recklessness that was fatal for thousands of Ukrainians—but this recklessness is far from over. For not allowing a swift victory for Ukraine means sacrificing lives again and again; allowing Russia’s occupation of certain of its territories to continue means condemning thousands, even tens of thousands, of Ukrainians to death, torture or deportation.
The Wall of the Fallen, St. Michael Golden Domed Monastery, March 24, 2024. Picture: Nicolas Tenzer
No breakthroughs
In short, this vote reflects a certain continuity of measured, half-way support for Ukraine and, ultimately, of non-decision. Some have already asserted that it is far from certain that, with both Trump elected and Biden extended, an equivalent package could be voted on again. Some are already predicting that a Biden II would be even less willing in his desire to defeat Russia—and let’s not even mention a Trump II. Unfortunately, there is no objective reason why the strategic vision that Biden and his advisors have lacked should suddenly emerge as if by miracle or spontaneous generation. This only makes it all the more crushing for Europeans to rearm at high speed, to devote a decisive effort to Ukraine and, most importantly, as Emmanuel Macron has begun to do, to break all remaining taboos.
Over and above the possibility of sending armed forces from democratic countries to Ukraine, to protect it (low hypothesis) or to defend it (high hypothesis, which everyone would certainly prefer to avoid, and rightly so), the taboo to be lifted as a matter of urgency is the ban on lifting any restrictions imposed on Ukrainians striking Russian soil with Western weapons. As we know, the long-range missiles already delivered have been restrained in their range, if not technically, then politically. The twenty or so F-16s—a ridiculously small number, by the way—due for late delivery at the beginning of the summer will apparently not be able to fire on Russian territory either. It is these restrictions that must end, not only because the democracies must show the Russian regime that its red lines are worthless, but also because it is totally legal, as I have often pointed out, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. And it is precisely important to restore the law to its indispensable normative dimension, either, when necessary, to impose impassable limits on the enemy—what we might call legal deterrence—or to remind us that the law, when it authorizes, does not have to stop in the middle of the road. On the contrary, every opportunity must be exploited.
But there is a practical and military reason for ending this taboo: if we really want Ukraine to win the war, strikes on Russian territory are strictly a military maneuver. There can be no Ukrainian victory—in other words, recapturing the occupied territories and expelling the Russian army—without deep strikes. All military specialists agree: the Russian army must be disrupted by hitting its rear bases, its supply points, its logistical nodes—rail and road—which enable arms, ammunition and men to be transported to the front, its communications networks, and also its ground launchers and air bases. No one has the right to ask the Ukrainian army to be victorious if it is not given the means to do so. If we do, we risk exhausting it by asking it to make an effort disproportionate to its possible results. This would still be tantamount to sacrificing tens of thousands of men, in vain. That some should imagine this impossible stratégy is repugnant.
The author with Oleksandra Maatvichuk and Konstantyn Sigov, Kyiv, Kyiv Security Forum, March 21, 2024. Picture: All Rights Reserved
Too much discomfort for them
For here we find the absurd fear that continues to animate American leaders and a few others: that of the consequences of an ultimate defeat of Russia and, downstream, that of the supposed risk that planning for this defeat would represent. To do this, some Western leaders and their advisors still have to get rid of the Russian narratives they have been inculcated with. This requires them to start thinking for themselves, rather than against the backdrop of the fears that years of soothing propaganda have engraved in their minds. But it is sometimes feared that this discomfort is too much for them to bear.
The long haul begins tomorrow. No doubt this is what the leaders of democracies have often not yet understood. They have no thought for tomorrow. Fortunately, some panic-stricken people have made the only choice that both reason and morality dictate, and that is to vote for aid. This choice protects us from the worst-case scenario in the immediate future; it does nothing to prepare us for a sustainable future. Self-congratulation is not the way to lucidity. The temporary comfort this vote gives us cannot be a dispensation for action that is finally commensurate with the enemy’s enterprise of radical destruction—as if we still refuse to be as strong-willed and radical as he is.