Does Biden have a plan?

Congress has forced the American president to explain how he intends to support Ukraine in the war with Russia in the coming years, professing "specific and achievable goals." This is stipulated in the law on financial assistance to Kyiv, which has just entered into force. So far, the head of the White House has encrypted his strategy for Ukraine very carefully, and sometimes it seems that it simply does not exist. 

"The Biden Plan” is of interest to both Kyiv and the Trump campaign, but for different reasons.

The Republicans want to anchor the administration with specific commitments to the Ukrainian military campaign and then harass it for violating them. It's not just about the size of the military check for Kyiv and the period of financial support, but also about the expected effect: the president should tell us how long this war will last and what the models for ending it might be. If Biden's document does not contain specifics, he will be accused of delay or waste. 

The White House has carefully avoided voicing any strategies, on the one hand, without any restrictions on the amount of support, and on the other hand, actually dosing supplies depending on its hidden objectives without declaring goals: we will not repeat the fear of escalation with the Kremlin and nuclear ghosts in the corridors of American politics.

It is important for Kyiv to know how much bolder the American leader has become in the third year of the war. His strategy for the past two years has been to provide aid at the last/critical moment, and the White House's internal fears in the fall of 2022 have led to the paralysis of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' autumn offensive. If this pattern of behavior remains in Biden's arsenal, then Putin need not fear defeat for a long time. 

"The Biden Plan” is still a mystery to everyone, but after the "Ukrainian" vote in Congress, many Western media outlets are trying to outline the contours of the strategy. Here's an interesting article from Bloomberg: last year, Ukraine could have returned all the territories occupied by Russia, but the squabbles in Congress have destroyed these expectations; now a new and consistent strategy to end the war is needed, with the ultimate goal of a settlement. 

Negotiations on a settlement should take place when the Kremlin realizes that prolonging the war will not yield anything more, and when Ukraine has already created a system of deterrence against any resumption of hostilities. 

The current package - even such a large package of American aid - will not achieve the declared goal. However, this money can give Ukraine a year of respite to rebuild its defense. To do so, much-needed artillery shells should be delivered to the front line, stabilizing the Ukrainian front line.

After that, the Ukrainian Armed Forces will have to focus on defense, inflicting disproportionate losses on Russian troops and equipment while recruiting the personnel needed to rebuild their frontline units. 

The year of respite will be critical for Europe as well, meaning that it will have time to increase its weapons production.

...If all goes well, Kyiv will be able to use this time to regroup, replenish its manpower, air defense and long-range artillery, and acquire F-16s and other high-tech equipment needed to create a credible, long-term deterrent against future attacks.

This is a really important question: how the world sees the end of the Russian war in Ukraine. Until recently, Western democracies have tried to shift the entire responsibility for the outcome of the campaign to Ukraine, but now it will not be possible to get away with it. So let's hear Biden out first, and then everyone else.

Source

About the author. Orest Sohar, journalist, editor-in-chief of Obozrevatel.

The editorial board does not always share the opinions expressed by blog authors.