United States Inches Closer to a Courageous Response

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken might prevail in his pursuit

Let me tell you a secret. Every time the United States makes an about-turn, I can sense it coming. I knew something is happening now because I just wrote about it.

The Biden administration will either attempt to overcompensate by sending more ATACMS, or collaborate with Ukraine to execute a swift surgical operation aimed at expelling Russian forces from the north.

I do believe something will give in very soon.

I pay close attention to every word spoken by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, carefully analyzing his statements until I understand his direction.

It was Secretary of State Blinken who first mentioned that the United States was considering supplying F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, even when his boss was publicly dismissing the idea at the time. Blinken led the administration in declassifying intelligence to thwart the supply of lethal weapons from China to Russia. He rallied Europe to pressure the Chinese administration. Blinken also convinced his boss to send tanks to Ukraine, giving the green light for European allies to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine.

I wrote a detailed piece on Mr. Blinken’s efforts in July 2023. He had my confidence then, and he has it now. He will continue to have it in the future as well. Men like him seldom change.

It was Secretary of State Blinken who first stated that Ukraine can use the American weapons as they see fit. Even now, members of Biden’s national security team continue to assert that Ukraine can only use American weapons within their own territory.

I don’t think Blinken would have uttered those words without some back-and-forth between him and his boss. Yesterday, The New York Times reported on an intriguing development.

Since the first shipments of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, President Biden has never wavered on one prohibition: President Volodymr Zelensky had to agree to never fire them into Russian territory, insisting that would violate Mr. Biden’s mandate to “avoid World War III.”

But the consensus around that policy is fraying. Propelled by the state deparment, there is now a vigorious debate inside the administration over relaxing the ban to allow the Ukrainians to hit missile and artillery launch sites just over the border in Russia — targets that Mr. Zelensky says have enabled Moscow’s recent territorial gains.

The proposal, pressed by Secretary of State Anthony J. Blinken after a sobering visit to Kyiv last week, is still in the formative stages, and it is not clear how many collegues among Mr. Biden’s inner circle have signed on. It has not yet been finally presented to the President, who has traditionally been the most cautious, officials said.

There is an extremely high likelihood that President Biden may have asked his national security team to present a plan to loosen the restrictions tying Ukraine’s hands, which are causing them to lose territory.

I fully supported President Biden’s decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, acknowledging that it was unsustainable for the United States to remain there indefinitely. However, my support quickly waned due to the chaotic execution of the withdrawal. What began as a sound decision turned into a disastrous situation because the national security team failed to implement the President’s directive effectively.

Biden should have immediately dismissed his national security team.

But he did not.

We are once again encountering a familiar scenario. The President’s position remains unchanged: he is determined to prevent the outbreak of a third world war, which means he is opposed to involving American troops in the conflict. He does not want a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO forces. That is his stance.

How challenging is it to deliver that directive?

Actually, it’s not that difficult to accomplish.

For two and a half years, Biden’s team has been assuring him that they are effectively managing escalation and keeping the war under control. But have they succeeded? Russian troop capacity in Ukraine has tripled since the start of the conflict. France and the Baltic nations are openly discussing sending their experts to aid Ukraine. North Korea is supplying missiles to Russia, and China is considering increasing aid to Russia.

Biden’s team has allowed the situation to spiral out of control, mirroring what happened in Afghanistan. The Defense Minister of Great Britain has stated that they have information suggesting that China has either already supplied lethal aid to Russia or is planning to do so.

In a speech delivered yesterday at the London Defence Conference, UK Secretary of State for Defence Grant Shapps stated:

An axis of authoritarian states led by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea have escalated and fuelled conflicts and tensions.

They have increasingly been working together.

And today I can reveal that we have evidence that Russia and China are collaborating on combat equipment for use in Ukraine.

As we saw from Putin’s state visit to Beijing and the 64% growth in trade between Russia and China since the full-scale invasion…they’re covering each other’s back.

If China does provide lethal aid to Russia, then we could already be on the brink of a third world war. So, the one thing that the President of the United States said he did not want to happen, we are closer to it today than we have ever been since the start of the war. His team desperately wanted to manage escalation, but often, they only considered the escalation factor from the Ukrainian end and completely missed understanding that the other side will have plenty of ways to escalate.

Take the decision not to attack airbases inside Russian territory, for example. Ukraine regularly faces bombardment by missiles fired from these fighter jets. If Ukraine is expected to play only a defensive role and not retaliate against these jets, how can they effectively defend themselves?

In that case, you bolster Ukraine’s air defense to such an extent that these Russian jets are unable to drop a single bomb inside Ukrainian territory. Have they done that? Nope.

They failed to provide adquate air defense to protect Ukrainian territory. And they prevented Ukraine from targeting the airfields. As a consequence, Russia continues its aerial bombardment, escalating the cost of the war.

The United States took no action in response to North Korea supplying missiles to Russia, so why would China not consider discussions about providing aid to Russia? Perhaps they will, or perhaps they won’t. However, if the United States had responded aggressively to the supply of weapons from North Korea, it would have deterred anyone considering aiding Russia.

Now, the Russians have opened a new front in the northeast, attempting to advance towards Kharkiv. If the American national security team fails to respond and demonstrates weakness, why wouldn’t Russia’s new Defense Minister aim for Kyiv next?

It actually makes a lot of sense to open up another front, as it will significantly increase pressure on Ukraine and the West. If Russia is already in the final surge and aiming to seek negotiations at the earliest opportunity, then deploying a small portion of their infantry-heavy army for a northern incursion towards Kyiv is certainly an option.

As Reagan once said, “We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.” A lack of response from the United States to Russia’s incursion in the northeast will escalate the situation. However, it’s important to note that Russia will be the one escalating, not Ukraine.

That is the problem.

Can Blinken Stop this Madness

I am hopeful. He has done it before. I believe he can do it again.

Once again, this is not a difficult task to accomplish.

United States need not give Ukraine carte blanche. Even a limited allowance would suffice.

They could reach out to Russia’s new Minister of Defense and convey that the United States will not stand idly by while Russia expands its frontlines. As a warning, they could inform them that Ukraine has been granted permission to destroy all Russian assets stationed in Belgorad Oblast (The Russian district from where they are launching their north east incursion). This permission will remain valid until all Russian troops who illegally crossed the border into the Kharkhiv sector are evicted.

Once they are evicted, Ukraine will cease the attacks inside the Russian border. That is our decision for now, but we reserve the right to change it in the future. This action on our part mirrors the escalation you initiated. Therefore, quietly withdraw and we can consider the matter resolved in the Kharkiv sector. Alternatively, if the troops remain, you will witness significant consequences in Belgorod Oblast.

If you’re curious about our escalation strategy in the event of an advance towards Kyiv, let me enlighten you. We have 50 ATACMS missiles, labeled with “Kerch Bridge” in blue and white ink, currently stationed in Poland. We haven’t deployed them yet. Their use will be entirely contingent on your next move of escalation.

Done…

Weakness invites aggression. It emboldens the bully. If you genuinely aim to manage the escalation ladder, you must strike with such force that the other side fears their own options to escalate.

It is extremely important for the West to respond to Russia’s decision to expand the frontline. If we respond with weakness, Russia will be emboldened to continue in this direction. They could either order more troops to move into the sector, or they could open up another front further north to exert direct pressure on Kyiv.

Time is running out for Moscow. With every billion that vaporizes from the rainy day fund, Russia inches closer to a state of desperation. They must be dealt with firmly; otherwise, they will continue testing the boundaries of our strength.

The best course of action for the Secretary of State would be to prioritize the current situation in the Kharkiv sector. While it may be premature for the Biden administration to endorse the notion of targeting the entirety of Russian territory with American weapons, districts bordering Ukraine should be considered legitimate war zones.

These areas serve as the launching pads for Russia’s military operations, making them a legitimate target.

This story is accessible to all, free for non-Medium users. Feel free to share it with anyone.