Biden Is Out of Sync With Ukraine’s Counteroffensive

Neither the White House, the Pentagon nor Foggy Bottom appears to have a strategy to win in Ukraine, and they aren’t ready to present one. Washington seems to be content to throw more money at the war — $43 billion and counting — and cast doubt upon Kyiv’s ability to wage a successful counteroffensive.

By withholding weapons and ammunition that Ukraine has requested to defeat Russian ground forces, the White House has contributed to many of the obstacles Ukraine encounters today on the battlefield. As a result, the Biden administration may induce a self-fulfilling prophecy to bring the war to a negotiated solution while strategically weakening Russia in the process. Winning evidently has become too hard.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, frequently lends credence to this White House narrative. Last week he said: “If the end state is [that] Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign country with its territory intact, that will take a considerable level of effort yet to come. That’s gonna take a long, long time, but you can also achieve those objectives — maybe, possibly — through some sort of diplomatic means.”

As if on cue, the Washington Post disclosed a classified intelligence report assessing that “Ukraine’s counteroffensive will fail to reach the key southeastern city of Melitopol,” and, if correct, that “would mean Kyiv won’t fulfill its principal objective of severing Russia’s land bridge to Crimea in this year’s push.” 

This narrow characterization of Ukraine’s counteroffensive is an event-driven assessment and not a conditions-driven outcome. Yet, it expediently provides cover to Milley’s appraisal that “Ukraine is fighting the fight. I had said a couple of months ago that this offensive was going to be long, it’s gonna be bloody, it’s going to be slow. And that’s exactly what it is — long, bloody and slow — and it's a very, very difficult fight.”

Yet Milley conveniently left out the “why” part. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not. 

During a news conference with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark, to announce the transfer of F-16 fighter aircraft to Ukraine, Zelenskyy made it clear that “it is difficult to criticize the Ukrainian counteroffensive when the country’s forces do not have appropriate weapons.” He said the country “will not risk the lives of thousands of defenders in order to advance up to five-to-eight kilometers with no powerful weapons.”

Many in the Puzzle Palace apparently agree. Fox News’s chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that Pentagon officials are “dismissive of the intelligence report being quoted by the Washington Post,” but acknowledge that the counteroffensive is “slow-going.” Notably, they also acknowledged the “why” part — that is, “Ukrainians were taught combined arms but not given the air power to succeed.” 

According to Politico, one U.S. official “who didn’t want to run afoul of the Biden administration by offering views on the record, said the realities of the counteroffensive are sinking in [with many] around Washington. Ukraine’s tactics to preserve troops and equipment, [and] Russia’s dug-in positions and the fight on multiple fronts, have led to slow advances, shifting a possible breakthrough further into the future.”

In other words, Kyiv is calibrating its war strategy to be in it for the long haul — as is Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

But is the White House?  

They were in June. During a news conference with President Biden in Washington, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak assured Ukraine: “We will be here as long as it takes.” Biden added, “I believe we’ll have the funding necessary to support Ukraine as long as it takes.” Now, however, Milley is hinting that “as long as it takes” may have a time limit.

Biden and his national security advisers appear to be out of sync with Ukraine’s battle plans and again may be underestimating Kyiv’s resolve to win this war. Washington’s best efforts to slow-roll offensive weapons to Zelenskyy to perhaps spur a negotiated settlement are being counterbalanced by NATO partners — Poland with the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank, and the United Kingdom, France and Germany with the Storm Shadow, SCALP and Taurus air-launched cruise missiles.

Denmark and the Netherlands are now on that list; the two countries announced last weekend they will “donate up to 61 F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine” upon completion of pilot training for Ukrainian forces.

Ukraine does have a plan to win the war and Zelenskyy is confident that Russia will lose. In his 10-point peace plan, he emphasized that two non-negotiable conditions would be restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including Crimea, and the removal of all Russian troops. Zelenskyy may achieve those objectives — not through “diplomatic means,” as suggested by Milley, but by demonstrating strategic patience and utilizing the pointed end of the army’s spear.

Although the Washington Post continues to report that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is “running out of options,” some reports from the battlefield suggest otherwise. Ukraine continues to hold its own in Kupiansk and Bakhmut, and is striking deep into Russia — in Moscow and, more recently, the Soltsy-2 airbase in the Novgorod oblast and Shaikovka airfield in the Kaluga oblast, where Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers armed with Kh-22s and Kh-32 supersonic missiles are based.  

Tactically, Ukraine is advancing southward toward Melitopol, having achieved operational successes in Tokmak and Robotyne. Kyiv is systematically isolating Crimea with deep strikes on the Kerch Strait and Chorhar bridges, and seaports along the Crimea and Russian coast.

The success or failure of Ukraine’s counteroffensive must be measured in its entirety, not just in the trenches and minefields. The Biden administration appears to be ignoring the deep fight — interdiction, defeating Russia’s ability to wage war — and that affords the Kremlin sanctuary to mass personnel and equipment on the Russian side of the border, potentially prolonging the conflict. 

Restricting Ukraine from targeting Russian forces in Russia with U.S. weapons allows Putin to continue to launch drone and missile strikes against civilian targets in Ukraine — largely without recourse — as he did in Chernihiv last Saturday, killing five and wounding 37, including 11 children. 

ATACMS could be part of the solution, but for now the White House seems content with allocating defensive weapons — air defense systems — instead of permanently removing Russian weapon systems from the battlefield.

In the absence of a discernible winning military strategy, the White House continues to seek cover, hiding behind the statement delivered by National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson that “President Biden has been clear that any decisions about a negotiated settlement to the war are going to be up to Ukraine and President Zelenskyy. We have been clear about the principle of ‘nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.’ And we are going to continue to focus on doing everything we can to help Ukraine defend its country against Russia’s brutal invasion.”

Washington’s actions strongly suggest that winning is not the White House’s preferred outcome as the Biden team attempts to set conditions for a diplomatic solution. In stark contrast, Ukraine and its European partners are maneuvering for an outright and decisive win. 

Fighting Russia is hard enough for Ukraine. Zelenskyy should not have to fight Washington policymakers as well. Yet here we are — and innocent Ukrainians may pay the price. 

Jonathan Sweet, a retired Army colonel and 30-year military intelligence officer, led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012 to 2014. 

Mark Toth is an economist, entrepreneur, and former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis.