U.S. and NATO pursue a full Russian defeat
What happened
As the U.S. and other NATO nations stepped up the shipment of heavy arms to Ukraine, Biden administration officials said this week the goal had shifted to a decisive Ukrainian victory that would leave Russia’s military so “weakened” it could no longer menace its neighbors. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered that message after a visit to Kyiv, where they met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and pledged to help Ukraine drive Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s army from Ukrainian soil. “We believe they can win if they have the right equipment, the right support,” said Austin. The Biden administration officials announced that the U.S. would soon reopen its embassy in Kyiv, and Austin met with defense officials from 40 nation allies in Germany to discuss how to “strengthen Ukraine’s military for the long haul.” “All of us have your back,” Austin told the Ukrainians.
Russia escalated its threats in response to the growing flow of Western arms. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the West had derailed peace negotiations, and accused NATO of fighting a “proxy” war with Russia that raises the threat of a nuclear conflict. “The danger is serious,” said Lavrov. “It must not be underestimated.” His words came days after Russia test-launched a long-range nuclear missile it said would “significantly bolster” its nuclear capability—a new weapon that Putin said should offer the West “food for thought.” Russia cut off natural gas to Poland and Bulgaria, after they refused a demand to pay in rubles. Russian forces unleashed heavy air bombardments along the front line and took several dozen small villages, but made no major territorial gains amid fierce Ukrainian resistance.
Speculation that Putin may be seriously ill was amplified after he appeared to limp and gripped a table with one hand during a televised appearance with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Some medical experts said Putin’s behavior—including a twitching foot—suggested Parkinson’s disease.
What the editorials said
President Biden and our Western allies must not be “cowed” by Moscow’s threats, said the Chicago Tribune. As the war enters its next phase—one certain to “inflict even more horror and carnage”—Ukrainian forces will need “a steady, stepped-up supply of munitions on every level,” from ammunition to anti-aircraft missile systems. We must deliver whatever they need, while “tightening the vise of sanctions on Russia’s murderous autocrat.”
What next? What the columnists said
Austin’s pointed words mark “a transformation” in America’s approach to the conflict, said David Sanger in The New York Times. From the outset Biden has taken pains to avoid casting the war as a U.S.-Russia showdown. But after the images of Russian atrocities made clear the consequences of even a partial Putin victory, U.S. officials are adopting rhetoric “that pits Washington more directly against Moscow.” It’s “a strategy that carries some risks,” from stoking Russian nationalism to increasing the odds that a cornered Putin will turn to chemical or even tactical nuclear weapons.
The heavy weapons pouring into Ukraine are a game changer, said Max Boot in The Washington Post. They’re “designed to win the war, not prolong it.” The West is sending howitzers, Phoenix Ghost attack drones, armored personnel carriers, Mi-17 helicopters, and “10 antitank weapons for every Russian tank in Ukraine.” That bodes badly for Russia’s “already battered forces,” which have nowhere close to the 3-to-1 advantage in combat power attackers typically need “to prevail against determined defenders.”
“Ukraine can win,” said Alina Polyakova and John Herbst in Foreign Affairs. That reality has been slow to dawn on Western leaders who’ve believed that even a blundering Russian military
“is simply too big to fail.” But the valiant Ukrainians have demonstrated they can not only hold off the invaders but also force their retreat, and “a clear military victory” is within their reach. Western leaders have a moral obligation to stop their “hand-wringing” about provoking Moscow and give them “all the support they can muster.”
“Putin has lost interest in diplomatic efforts to end the war,” said and the Financial Times. Sources close to the Russian president say Russia’s combat losses had him “seriously considering a peace deal.” But the Ukrainians’ accusations of war crimes and the “humiliating” sinking of the battleship Moskva last month has left the isolated autocrat seething and seeking revenge. Putin “wants to win big,” said a Kremlin source. Administration officials believe the next few weeks “will shape the eventual outcome” of the war, said in The NewYork Times. If Russia prevails in the east, Putin will be able to claim success at home and may seek a cease-fire, using “the Donbas as leverage.” If Russia’s advances are stopped, he’ll face a “stark choice”: double down on “a fight that could drag on for years or negotiate in earnest at peace talks.” in
If Putin prevails in the Donbas, he won’t stop there, said The Wall Street Journal. Instead, “Russia will concentrate its forces and march south.” Once a quarter or a third of Ukraine is under Putin’s control, he might seek a truce— then “bide his time as Western sanctions erode,” while readying his army to turn back toward Kyiv. That nightmare scenario “underscores the urgency” of sending Ukraine the artillery, drones, tanks, and other weapons it needs “to press for victory.”
The war has forced “a sea change in U.S. foreign policy,” said Doyle McManus in the Los Angeles Times. The Biden administration’s national security focus has shifted from China to Russia, and ended “a period of retrenchment” in which the U.S. has sought to avoid overseas “entanglements.” We seem to be speeding toward “a Cold War–style division of the world into two blocs—one led by the United States, the other by China and Russia.”
“Her loss should not lead to complacency,” said The Boston Globe. A majority of working-class voters backed Le Pen because, as in the U.S., the global economy threatens to leave them behind, and they view Macron as a “smirking, out-of-touch elitist.” He “infamously triggered a series of Yellow Vest protests” after proposing a hike in the fuel tax in 2018 to help curb carbon emissions. Macron “shouldn’t backtrack” from tackling climate concerns, but he is among the Western leaders—President Biden included— who aren’t “connecting with alienated voters.”
What the columnists said
Despite dire predictions, “in the end, it was not even that close,” said Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post. An American president who won by a 17-point margin “would be a political colossus.” This fragmented, economically unpredictable age is simply not a friendly environment for “constructive problem-solvers,” but Macron, at least, managed to prevail by clarifying the stakes: It was either him or a right-wing, “grievance-mongering opponent” who would take away the French people’s cherished individual freedoms. Our own pragmatic but flailing president should take note.
She might have lost, but Le Pen is by no means “walking away empty-handed,” said Yasmeen Serhan in The Atlantic. She has turned her party “from a toxic fringe group to one of the most significant players in French politics.” Le Pen and other hard-right European politicians have succeeded in bringing their positions on immigration into the mainstream. In the U.K., Nigel Farage has become a kingmaker, and in Germany the Alternative for Germany party has swept away taboos and moved the limits of acceptable politics. “Across Europe, nationalist and populist parties have demonstrated just how powerful they can be without winning power.”
The Russian invasion of Ukraine might’ve been what ultimately saved Macron, said Arjun Singh in National Review. In the weeks afterward, Le Pen “couldn’t find a convincing message” to dispel concerns that she was in Putin’s pocket. Voters deplored Macron’s failures—his lackluster handling of the coronavirus pandemic, inflation reaching a four-decade high—but they trusted his judgment more. And so at least for the next five years, “the score’s still zero for the populists.”