America currently playing to lose in Ukraine

Can the United States supply advanced weapons to Ukraine yet remain neutral in its war with Russia? Of course – it has been done before.

During the London Blitz in World War II, Britain stood alone against the Nazi onslaught. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who in his recent speech to the British Parliament channeled Prime Minister Winston Churchill, might recall Churchill’s February 1941 message to President Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Give us the tools and we will finish the job.”

The United States was officially neutral at that point in the war but was actively helping the British. Shortly after conflict broke out in 1939, Roosevelt instituted the “cash and carry” policy of arms sales, and in answer to Churchill’s call for the tools of war, Washington passed the Lend-Lease Act. Britain got what it needed to stem the tide.

However, President Joe Biden is no Franklin Roosevelt. When Poland offered Soviet-era MiG fighters to embattled Ukraine, the Biden administration blocked the transfer. This not only denied Ukraine critical weapons but also strained the NATO alliance during a crisis that demands unity.

True, the United States and other free-world countries are supplying other types of military assistance to Ukraine, such as portable anti-tank and anti-air weapons. On Wednesday, Biden authorized an additional $800 million in aid, and Congress has approved more than $13 billion in military and development assistance. Intelligence sharing has been ongoing. Humanitarian and medical aid is also pouring into the region from around the world.

But why not give the Ukrainians the tools they need to win? The usual oneword answer is “escalation.” The assumption is that there is an unstated threshold of support, which, once crossed, would result in an escalatory spiral, perhaps to the level of nuclear conflict. By this logic, Washington can give Kyiv a little but not too much. Our policy seems to be to let Ukraine lose the war, just more slowly.

The Soviet Union was not concerned about escalation when it supplied America’s enemies during the Vietnam War. The Kremlin gave North Vietnam all manner of supplies, including advanced weaponry and aircraft. Moscow sent its most sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons to defend Hanoi, and even supplied crews that shot down American aircraft. (Ironically, many of these troops were from Ukraine.)

And while the war raged, Washington and Moscow were actively negotiating important nuclear arms controls agreements. Strategic-level diplomacy was wholly detached from what was happening on the ground in Southeast Asia.

Policymakers should pay less attention to what Putin might do if we annoy him and instead do more to communicate what price the Russian dictator will pay if he continues his crimes against peace.

Meanwhile, the international community should give the Ukrainians everything they need to make Putin’s forces suffer dearly for bringing open war to Europe. And if the Kremlin objects, double the amount.