I’d say we don’t have one, for the simple reason we aren’t at war.
It’s not a U.S. or NATO “proxy war,” either. We’re not at war with Russia, period. So supplying Ukraine with weapons isn’t what I’d call a military strategy. It’s military assistance, nothing more.
CNN observed on Monday, April 25, 2022, that “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has transformed into a grinding war of attrition,” and reported “the US and its allies have begun to convey a new, longer-term goal for the war: to defeat Russia so decisively on the battlefield that it will be deterred from launching such an attack ever again.”
I think “goal” is the right term. “Hope” is more precise. We hope that’s the outcome. “Want” maybe fits, too.
That talk is coming from the defense side of the Biden administration. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told reporters “we want to see Russia weakened to the degree” it can’t do this again. An NSC spokesperson said, “We want Ukraine to win. One of our goals has been to limit Russia’s ability to do something like this again …. That’s why we are arming the Ukrainians … [and] using sanctions and export controls … to undercut Russia’s economic and military power ….”
That’s not a strategy, either. It’s a want, a goal.
CNN called Austin’s comments “consistent with what the US’ goals” (correctly labeling them as such) “have been for months — namely, to make this invasion a strategic failure for Russia.” Russia is at war and does have a strategy, so it’s not inaccurate to describe a Russian defeat in Ukraine in those terms.
But all this talk triggered a response from the State Department, which worries “it could play into the Russian propaganda line that NATO and US support for Ukraine is a power play.” A State official emphasized, “The goal is not to tell the Russians that ‘no matter what, the US and NATO are going to weaken you.'” It’s to pressure them stop the war, he said. Sure sounds like Defense and State aren’t entirely on the same page.
The U.S., of course, has foreign policy and military strategies.
CNN says “Russia coming out of the conflict weaker than before is an idea that other Biden administration officials have referenced” (without specifying whether they’re from Defense or State), but noted that American officials in general were reluctant to say the U.S.’s goal is to see Russia fail, “and be militarily neutered,” because they didn’t hurt the prospects for peace” negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. But that changed after news of Russian atrocities.
Goals. Hopes. That’s the correct terminology for America’s role in this. What difference does it make? Because what we want or hope is subordinate to what Ukraine chooses to do.
True, we’re not merely bystanders. As White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters, while “obviously right now the war is in Ukraine,” the U.S. and its allies want to keep it from spreading to other countries.
But the point is, what Ukraine does down the road could come into conflict with American and NATO aims. Even if they’re winning, and can bargain from a position of strength, they may settle with Russia on terms short of our hopes and goals. Their goal isn’t to weaken Russia’s army to impotence, but to drive it out of their country. If they accomplish that, it’s enough for them, even if it’s not enough for us. That could leave us in the position of having to finish the job later.
So, what is our strategy in Ukraine? We don’t have one. We’re hoping Russia gets its ass kicked and staggers out of Ukraine with no appetite for a larger war that we’d get sucked into. But that’s largely beyond our control. All we can do is supply Ukraine with weapons and hope it produces that result.