The GOP has convinced itself that it must look upon Biden’s dithering on Ukraine and say he’s not dithering enough. Is that really what voters want to hear?
Right-leaning media outlets and Republican lawmakers appear to be taking their cues from just 28 of 271 congressional Republicans on the question of aiding Ukraine. Strangely enough, they have painted themselves into a corner that is far outside the GOP’s comfort zone. In committing themselves to the notion that Joe Biden is providing Ukraine with too much support, is too committed to its defense against a Russian invasion, and is too invested in European security, they’ve denied themselves the standard GOP line when it comes to Democratic commitments to the defense of U.S. interests abroad. They have passed on the opportunity to attack the president’s approach to the crisis in Ukraine as one that is, in fact, too soft.
“They are coming,” said one U.S. official early this month when asked by ABC News if President Biden planned to finally acquiesce to Ukrainian requests for long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). But by mid month, with movement still apparently stalled, a group of Republican senators asked the president to explain the holdup. “Delay will cost more lives and prolong the conflict,” they rightly observed. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Washington would have been a good time to end the delay. And apparently, Biden did reassure his counterpart that those ATACMs were coming — just not anytime soon. “As he’s weighed all that up to today, [Biden] has determined that he would not provide ATACMS, but he is also not taking it off the table in the future,” said National-Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.
The Biden administration has engaged in this tired song and dance from the outset of Russia’s war of territorial conquest and subjugation. The president reliably hems and haws when confronted with Ukraine’s request for offensive munitions and weapons platforms, arguing with itself over the extent to which the Kremlin will react to its support for Ukraine, only to accede after losing vital weeks and even months.
Worst of all, the administration has developed a bad habit of taking undue credit for Ukraine’s victories as though it engineered them, when it’s often the other way around. As I wrote for the magazine back in March, the White House tends to accede to Ukraine’s requests only after Kyiv demonstrates its capacity to change outcomes on the battlefield:
On March 29, Moscow acknowledged the withdrawal of the forces it had committed to the siege of Kyiv. Shortly afterward, Washington consented to expand the scope of the weapons systems it was willing to share with Ukraine, including long-sought heavy artillery. By mid May, the Russian forces had retreated from positions around the eastern city of Kharkiv, breaking the siege and bombardment of this sprawling urban center. The White House followed by finally consenting to provide Ukraine with long-range artillery, including High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS). In early September, Russian troops abandoned the whole of Kharkiv Oblast. Before the end of that month, the Biden White House approved an additional $1.1 billion in Ukrainian security assistance — the largest single tranche up to that point. Russia pulled its troops back from Kherson, the first major city to fall to Russian invading forces, in November. Russian retrenchment helped Washington overcome its reluctance to provide Ukrainian forces with Patriot missile-defense systems and the training to use them. Over the winter, Ukrainian resistance to “spoiling attacks” by Russian forces across what had settled into largely static front lines shook loose Western commitments to provide Ukraine with tanks and half-track vehicles.
The administration’s provision of ATACMS is following a similar trajectory. Ukrainian forces have reportedly broken through Russia’s second major line of defense — the so-called Surovikin line — north of the Crimean Peninsula, threatening Russian forces with forward-positioned artillery that could make its control of the land bridge between the Russian Federation and the peninsula untenable. Likewise, Ukrainian forces have reportedly liberated the towns of Klishchiivka and Andriivka to Bakhmut’s south, pinning down Russian forces and preventing them from reinforcing the lines Ukraine is assaulting north of Crimea.
ATACMS aren’t the only weapons platform on hold amid the administration’s plague of self-doubt. The president gave the go-ahead to transfer F-16 fighter aircraft to Ukraine in mid-August, but the jets won’t arrive in Ukraine anytime soon.
“According to Gen. James Hecker, commander of US Air Forces in Europe and Africa, Ukrainian pilots undertaking F-16 training are typically pretty ‘young’ who have ‘barely any hours at all,’ and that many steps lay ahead of them before they’ll be ready to strap in to the Lockheed Martin-made Fighting Falcon,” Breaking Defense reported last month. “Additionally, Hecker said significant time will be required to build ‘proficiency’ on the F-16, cautioning that it may be several years before Ukraine reaches that point.”
Bizarrely, the Republican Party has convinced itself that it must look upon the Biden White House’s dithering and say he’s not dithering enough. It was not all that long ago that a confident Republican Party with the courage of its own convictions and assured of America’s virtues would be appalled by the president’s unsteadiness. No longer, it seems.
From the presidency of Jimmy Carter to that of Barack Obama, the Right has a long and storied tradition of denouncing “mush from the wimp” in the White House. Today, it appears the president isn’t wimpy enough for GOP tastes, and his mush lacks the watery consistency they’d prefer. But is that what Republican voters want to hear? Will none of the Republican Party’s presidential aspirants take the opportunity to attack the poltroon in the Oval Office, whingeing over whether his actions might make the Russians mad? Will no one test this proposition?