Follow us on social

US contractors in Ukraine: Another 'red line' crossing?

US contractors in Ukraine: Another 'red line' crossing?

This is going in the wrong direction, Mr. President

QiOSK

The Biden administration is reportedly considering allowing US military contractors to set up shop inside Ukrainian borders, with the aim of strengthening Kyiv's ability to maintain and repair weapons systems that Washington has provided to help it fight off Russian aggression.

It is too soon to tell whether such a move, if enacted, would bring the United States closer to having its own troops participate in the war effort more directly, at least in some fashion. President Biden has, wisely, made it clear that he will not send US troops to Ukraine. But these latest reports nonetheless highlight the tensions — and risks — at the heart of the administration's current strategy.

Undoubtedly, the Kremlin would view a full-fledged contingent of Western troops on Ukrainian soil as intolerable, and it is difficult to assess the precise threshold at which Moscow will consider one of its red lines to be crossed. Irrespective of the purpose for which they are being sent, a Western military presence in Ukraine risks establishing "facts on the ground" which would block Moscow's ability to realize its war aims. (The latter have less to do with territory and more to do with Ukraine's security orientation and the concomitant implications for foreign troop presence on its territory.)

Russia is all too familiar with such a strategy, having imposed "facts on the ground" itself in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 in an effort to block both countries' paths into NATO. The result would almost certainly be an escalation of the conflict that would directly threaten the security of Western countries.

The Biden administration has thus far carefully — and gradually — scaled up its military assistance to Ukraine. The benefit of this approach has been the ability to probe Russian red lines, seeing how Moscow reacts to the deployment of each new weapons system or each new Western green light.

This is certainly a better approach than the one proposed by hawks to surge military equipment into Ukrainian hands to ensure Kyiv's "victory" at all costs, ignoring both the risk of military escalation and Ukraine's manpower deficit.

However, Biden's strategy still faces a dilemma: with Russia making gains under status quo conditions, and a scaling down of support being unthinkable due to the high stakes identified by the administration (i.e., nothing less than the survival of the "rules-based international order" itself), the only politically palatable option left is to escalate Western involvement and go further down the rabbit hole. And if rising populism in Western societies is any indication, this option will only remain politically palatable for so long.

There is a fourth option, however, and it is to embrace genuine diplomacy. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke with his newly appointed Russian counterpart, the first call between American and Russian defense ministers in over a year. But keeping lines of communication open, while necessary, is insufficient. There is no substitute for finally resolving the question of Ukraine's security status to the mutual satisfaction (or mutual dissatisfaction) of Moscow, Kyiv and the West.

The forthcoming NATO summit in Washington will no doubt make clear once again that Ukraine has no realistic prospects of joining the alliance, irrespective of the promise made in Bucharest in 2008 and endlessly repeated ever since. Indeed, the fact that allies have been dragging their feet on this question for the past 16 years means that any extension of Article 5 to Kyiv would likely not be credible. Moscow could easily choose to test any Western commitment to come to Ukraine's defense, forcing Washington and its allies into a binary choice between starting World War III or undermining the credibility of allied deterrence across the board.

Any further territorial gains are unlikely to prove more beneficial to Ukraine than the economic and human costs of continued war. Nor have more than two years of war turned Russia into any less of a threat to Europe or Ukraine. One might hope for Western sanctions to bite even further and for the Russian economy to overheat over the coming years, but hope is not a strategy.

The status quo approach has left Ukraine in a position where it will likely have to settle for terms worse than those proposed in Istanbul in the spring of 2022, and certainly worse than those on the table in Minsk a decade ago.

No Ukrainian president wishing to keep his job will easily swallow such a bitter pill, but this does not mean that the process of rebuilding some kind of pan-European security order cannot begin through discrete dialogue, even as the fighting continues.


Pixel Shot/Sutterstock

QiOSK
Friedrich Merz
Top photo credit: German Prime Minister-in-waiting Friedrich Merz (Shutterstock.Penofoto)

German leaders miscalculated popular will for war spending

Europe

Recent polls show the center right Christian Democrats (CDU-CSU) headed by prospective chancellor Friedrich Merz losing ground against the populist right Alternative for Germany (AfD), even before the new government has been formed.

The obvious explanation is widespread popular dissatisfaction with last month’s vote pressed through the outgoing parliament by the CDU-CSU and presumptive coalition partner the SPD (with the Greens) to allow unlimited increases in defense spending. This entailed disabling the constitutional “debt brake” introduced in 2009 to curb deficits and public debt.

keep readingShow less
Bernie Sanders Chris Van Hollen
Top image credit: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a press conference regarding legislation that would block offensive U.S. weapons sales to Israel, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., November 19, 2024. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
Will Senate vote signal a wider shift away from Israel?

Can Bernie stop billions in new US weapons going to Israel?

Middle East

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz have been roundly criticized for the security lapse that put journalist Jeffrey Goldberg into a Signal chat where administration officials discussed bombing Houthi forces in Yemen, to the point where some, like Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) have called for their resignations.

But the focus on the process ignores the content of the conversation, and the far greater crime of continuing to provide weapons that are inflaming conflicts in the Middle East and enabling Israel’s war on Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians.

keep readingShow less
Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?
Top Image Credit: The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), foreground, leads a formation of Carrier Strike Group Five ships as Air Force B-52 Stratofortress aircraft and Navy F/A-18 Hornet aircraft pass overhead for a photo exercise during Valiant Shield 2018 in the Philippine Sea Sept. 17, 2018. The biennial, U.S. only, field-training exercise focuses on integration of joint training among the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. This is the seventh exercise in the Valiant Shield series that began in 2006. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Erwin Miciano)

Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?

QiOSK

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) conducted an airstrike in Somalia against ISIS targets on Saturday, killing “multiple ISIS-Somalia operatives.” It was the eighth such strike in the short time that Trump has been in office, reflecting a quiet, but deadly American campaign in a part, of the world that remains far below the public radar.

“AFRICOM, alongside the Federal Government of Somalia and Somali Armed Forces, continues to take action to degrade ISIS-Somalia's ability to plan and conduct attacks that threaten the U.S. homeland, our forces, and our civilians abroad,” a Sunday AFRICOM press release stated.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.