CNN
Comments from Adam Kinzinger and Ben Hodges
(CNN) — There seems to be a doctrine of non-escalation on the Biden Administration’s National Security Council, and these “escalationists” seem deeply concerned that any additional aid to Ukraine could lead to World War III.
France and Germany took the significant step on Tuesday, joining Britain and other countries in saying that weapons they are supplying to Ukraine could be used to attack Russian territory. Russian President Putin predictably responded by saying these moves could have “serious consequences,” especially for a “small, densely populated country.” The threat has been repeated many times by Putin, referring to Russia’s nuclear arsenal, as Western countries step up their support for Ukraine. The United States needs to stop taking it seriously.
Let’s take a look back at the history of the past few years.
Ukraine requested Javelins and Stingers before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and started a full-scale war. Initially, they didn’t get as many as they wanted due to fears of escalation. Eventually, they got more, used them effectively, and got even more. Nuclear war never happened.
After winning the Battle of Kiev, Ukraine asked for MiG-29s, which Poland agreed to provide in exchange for Western fighter jets. The Biden administration initially blocked this but later softened, and no nuclear war broke out.
Ukraine asked for F-16 fighter jets to defend its airspace, and the regime initially refused, but then changed its stance and no nuclear war broke out.
Ukraine requested Patriot missiles to protect itself from relentless Russian air attacks, and the administration initially refused, but then reversed course, averting nuclear war and saving many lives.
Ukraine requested the HIMARS rocket launcher, an advanced missile/artillery system, to attack Russian supply lines. The regime initially refused, but then changed its tune, and nuclear war did not break out.
Ukraine requested Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles for trench warfare in the east. The administration initially refused, but then changed its tune, and no nuclear war broke out.
Ukraine requested ATACMS missiles with a range of about 190 miles to strike Russian targets. The administration initially refused but then reversed course, and nuclear war did not break out.
In almost all of these cases, Russia threatened escalation, attacking NATO, or using nuclear weapons. Each time, the Russian threats were unsuccessful, and Ukraine was able to better defend its territory. While Russian threats should not be taken lightly, history shows that they are often empty. Nuclear threats were common during the Cold War, but the United States did not deter them from advancing its foreign policy interests.
What if we had provided Ukraine with all of the above weapons from the beginning? After the 2022 counterattack, Russia was on the defensive, disorganized and demoralized, struggling to recruit more soldiers. Ukraine could have used all of the above to end the fighting, or at least mount a much more successful counterattack in 2023. The war might have ended.
Some have said that with careful calibration by the Biden administration, the US could inflict increased firepower on Ukraine without setting off any Russian traps. But that is not how wars happen. The idea of Russia using nuclear weapons has proven not to be a real concern. Just as we slowly increase pressure, Russia also slowly builds up its tolerance for pain and can choose to respond at any time.
All this is important to remember as Ukraine repeatedly seeks permission to attack military targets inside Russia with American weapons. So far, their requests have been denied, but let’s make a prediction: they will eventually get this permission. So why wait? Why delay, when Ukrainians continue to lose their lives?
When Ukraine was struggling to defend Kiev, the ban on attacks on Russian territory made sense — there was no point in wasting effort on “retaliatory strikes” when you’re fighting to retake territory — but when Russia left Kiev and the war turned into a war of attrition, and fighting turned into an artillery duel between the two sides in eastern Ukraine, maintaining this ban became completely pointless.
Now Ukrainians are forced to endure air attacks by Russian glide bombs, and despite knowing the source of these attacks, they are unable to strike at those locations.
Of course, escalation management is important, and aid to Ukraine and its allies cannot be blind. The United States has a right to debate and comment on how lethal aid should be used. But in the face of existential threat, Ukraine should be given the freedom to decide how best to defend itself and save lives.
We have heard Ukrainian soldiers repeatedly tell the story of Russian columns attacking, being repulsed, retreating to the safety of Russian territory to regroup, have a hot meal, make a plan and attack again. In a logical war, at the very moment of retreat and regrouping, they would redouble their attacks and attack harder, creating confusion and panic, shattering fighting power and morale. Ukraine cannot win if Russia can attack civilian targets on its own territory with impunity and declare a “time-out.”
Ukraine is fighting primarily for its own survival, but also for the West as a whole and the post-World War II order. With such significant implications on the world stage, the Biden administration needs to clearly articulate, or at least understand clearly internally, what the United States is trying to achieve through its assistance. Clear strategic objectives that the United States failed to establish in Vietnam or Afghanistan could lead to victory. But will the United States support a Ukrainian victory? If so, what would that look like and what would it take to achieve these objectives as quickly as possible? Or will it simply support a war of attrition until Russia comes to the negotiating table?
As any military expert or general (or sergeant) will tell you, the most important element of victory is the annihilation of the enemy, whether in direct combat or where the enemy is planning and waging a mass war. The idea that, as of today, Russia can consider its territory a “safe haven” for U.S. weapons runs counter to the goal of a Ukrainian victory.
Ukraine has been prevented from attacking legitimate military targets by a paralyzing fear of escalation, even though the laws of armed conflict give it the right to defend itself in such a way. The Biden administration should be commended for its actions in Ukraine, especially given that former President Donald Trump may have threatened to abandon the country. But the fear of escalation, while noble, is actually delivering a victory for Ukraine. Low probability.
CNN Wire
™ & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved.
