Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

It is no longer easy to tell what the Ukraine War was for. Very early on, U.S. goals got grafted onto Ukrainian goals, and the hybrid braid became hard to disentangle. “This is a war that is in many ways… bigger than Ukraine,” the State Department announced in the first weeks of the war. But, whatever those goals, few of them remain: There will be no NATO membership for Ukraine, there will be no recovery of all of its territory, and there will be no weakening of Russia.

Former President Joe Biden has a lot of explaining to do, as does Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

He is going to have to explain why pursuing those wider goals was worth the loss of so much life, limb and land. And, if he is to survive politically and, perhaps, even physically, he is going to have to find someone to blame.

He already fired Valery Zaluzhny, who served as Ukraine’s military commander-in-chief until last year. Now, Ukraine’s security service has arrested two generals and a colonel on the charge of failing to protect Ukrainian territory from Russian advances.

But blaming the generals won’t be enough to acquit Zelensky. The war went on after Zaluzhny and continued to worsen. And no one will buy the blaming of field commanders. “We were defending a huge swath of the border, we fought to the death in the first hours of the attack,” said soldiers in one brigade after their former commander was arrested. “We were short of people, ammunition and support but we fought, we fought under the leadership of our commander!”

Ukraine no longer has the capacity to field the men nor the weapons to hold off the Russian advance. More land will be lost the longer the war goes on, and more men and weapons are not on their way. “The problem with Ukraine is not that they’re running out of money,” Marco Rubio said at his confirmation hearing for his nomination as secretary of state, “but that they’re running out of Ukrainians.”

One day, Zelensky will need to explain to Ukrainians his part in the tragedy. He will have to defend his decision to yield to the West’s pressure not to sign anything with Russia but to “just fight,” as then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly put it. As American President Donald Trump said in his first Oval Office interview, “Zelensky… shouldn’t have allowed this to happen either. He’s no angel. Zelensky decided that ‘I want to fight.’”

But that does not exonerate the U.S. or mean that Zelensky is unjustified in blaming Biden. Biden, too, is one day going to have to explain what the war in Ukraine was for subsequent to the promising talks in Istanbul.

The Biden administration repeatedly promised Ukraine whatever they needed for as long as it takes. But that promise evolved into whatever we agree to for as long as convenient. And a clear answer to the question “Whatever they need to do what?” was never provided.

According to Biden National Security Council official Eric Green, U.S. support for Ukraine was never intended to push Russia out of its territory, recover its lost land, and reassert its territorial integrity.

“We were deliberately not talking about the territorial parameters,” Green said in an interview with Time. “The more important objective,” he explained, “was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.”

But reclaiming territory was all that was left for the Ukrainians after the West pressured them to keep fighting rather than abandon aspirations to join NATO. Neutrality for Kiev was “the key point” for Russian negotiators, according to one Ukrainian lawmaker who participated in peace talks. If an agreement had been made, a still-sovereign Ukraine would remain free to pursue economic and cultural—but not military—integration with the West.

Green’s assertion, at first, seems unlikely. The U.S. pushed Ukraine to carry out a counteroffensive in the Donbas and endorsed strikes on military targets in Crimea.

If Biden was not prepared to give Ukraine whatever it needed to reclaim its territory, and if he was not prepared to offer Ukraine NATO membership, then what was American support for the war all about? Was it really just about weakening Russia or asserting NATO’s unchallenged right to expand wherever it wants, including right up to Russia’s borders? If so, then the people of Ukraine have been cruelly used by America.

In the first weeks of the war, there was a plausible hope worth exploring that Ukraine might retain much of its territory while avoiding catastrophic bloodshed and destruction of lives. Washington chose a different path, and it is incumbent on Biden to explain why.

Original article: The American Conservative