OPINION: Fissures Within Team Biden?

President Joe Biden, the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom have not been on the same sheet of music over the last couple of months when it comes to Ukraine. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken appears to be out of step with the White House and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, while the Pentagon appears to be in a follow and support mode.

There may be a crack in the National Security Council armor. With Ukraine’s inability to defend itself from Russian forces in a US-afforded sanctuary apparent to all and debate growing over its inclusion into the NATO Alliance, the crack is widening.

Blinken is beginning to see the light – a second awakening if you will. His time on the ground is the difference. Releasing authorities for Ukraine to conduct self-defense strikes against imminent threats, as US Central Command is authorized in the Middle East, is essential. ATACMS and F-16 fighter jets are part of the solution for Ukraine and a healthy dose of calcium for Team Biden.

During a joint interview with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba while in Kyiv on May 15, Blinken told reporters: “We have not encouraged or enabled strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war, a war it’s conducting in defense of its freedom, of its sovereignty, of its territorial integrity. And we will continue to back Ukraine with the equipment that it needs to succeed, that it needs to win.”

Other Topics of Interest

‘A Powerful Act of Justice’ – US Taps Frozen Russian Assets to Fund $20 Billion Loan to Ukraine

The US has announced it would disburse $20 billion to Ukraine funded by interest from frozen Russian assets as part of a larger $50 billion aid G7 support package agreed upon in October.

Blinken’s comments though ran counter to the message provided by his own State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, who in late March when questioned about Ukraine targeting Russian oil refineries stated: “It has always been our position since the outset of this war that we do not encourage or support Ukraine taking strikes outside its own territory… this has been our longtime policy that we have made clear to the Ukrainian government, so it’s not something that they would – of which they would be unaware.”

On May 16, the day after Blinken’s joint interview with Kuleba, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh threw cold water on the Secretary’s comments during a Pentagon press briefing stating: “The Secretary [Austin], in his conversations with Minister Umerov, talks through how best those [weapon] capabilities can be used, and we believe that is within Ukrainian territory.”

Then on May 28, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby doubled down on that message, telling reporters: “There’s no change to our policy at this point. We don’t encourage or enable the use of US-supplied weapons to strike inside Russia.”

But the Administration reversed course on May 30 and allowed for “limited strikes inside Russia with American-made weapons… for counter-fire purposes in the Kharkiv region… against Russian forces that are attacking them or preparing to attack them.”

Kharkiv was under assault by Russian artillery, cruise missiles and drones being fired from the Russian side of the border – and had little recourse.

Oleksandra Ustinova, head of Ukraine’s parliamentary commission on arms and ammunition commented while in Washington, DC: “We saw their military sitting one or two kilometers from the border inside Russia, and there was nothing we could do about that… They [Russia] know there is a restriction for Ukrainians to shoot at Russian territory.”

The Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) was available – only not for use against Russian forces in Russia. As one US official said: “Our policy with respect to prohibiting the use of ATACMS or long-range strikes inside of Russia has not changed.” The very weapon system Russian President Vladimir Putin and his generals fear most, and the one Ukraine needs most to protect Kharkiv, was silenced.

Blinken saw this firsthand. Ukrainian villages, towns, cities being destroyed. Ukrainian civilians targeted and killed. A very real and direct threat against the second largest city in the country, and the possibility that France, Poland, and the Baltic States would commit troops on the ground if Kyiv was in doubt, pulling NATO and the US into a direct confrontation with Russian forces.

It was more “just enough.” Not enough to win, but enough to maintain the status quo – defend Ukraine and weaken Russia. The President’s D-Day remarks in France served only to reinforce this strategy – the comparison between allies storming the beaches of Normandy to liberate Europe and restricting ATACMS usage to not further escalate a war in Ukraine’s survival is a complete contradiction.

The most recent disconnect concerns Ukraine’s admission into the NATO alliance. In April, Blinken told reporters in front of NATO Headquarters in Brussels alongside Kuleba that, “Ukraine will become a member of NATO.” They were in Belgium to talk about the NATO summit this summer in Washington, which will commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Alliance. According to Blinken, “The purpose of the summit is to help build a bridge to that [Ukraine] membership and to create a clear pathway for Ukraine moving forward… [there is] very strong support for Ukraine going forward and its relationship with NATO.”

But during a recent interview with Time Magazine, the President seemed to counter Blinken, stating: “I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine.”

The Telegraph’s Con Coughlin picked up on that disconnect, which has gone mostly unreported in the Western media.

Not only did the President’s comments conflict with Blinken’s statement, but it also undermined NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, who during a speech to the Verkhovna Rada in Ukraine on April 30, said “Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. Ukraine’s future is in NATO. And Ukraine will become a member of NATO.”

In July 2023, leaders of the then-31 NATO nations came together in Vilnius, Lithuania for their annual summit. Zelensky understood Ukrainian membership would be decided at war’s end, but had hoped for an invitation to join the alliance; however, as the Vilnius Communiqué stated: “We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met.”

This position reflected the desire of the US and other allies to minimize any risk of Russia escalating the conflict in Ukraine or beyond. It was nonetheless a positive step for Ukraine. As the United Kingdom’s Defense Secretary Ben Wallace put it: “The win here for Ukraine is the sort of cultural acceptance that Ukraine belongs in NATO.” A point reiterated by Stoltenberg nearly nine months later.

President Biden and his advisors did not get the memo. Escalation is still in the forefront of their calculus, only now compounded by a presidential election, Gaza, Iran, Taiwan, the southern border, and more.

Blinken seems to understand the human suffering taking place in Ukraine – now at 30 months – and that the only way this ends is through the defeat of Russia. Biden continues to look inward – void of the empathy he once proclaimed as an attribute. There is a growing divide between the two on the way ahead. How much longer will Secretary Blinken tolerate being publicly corrected?

Copyright 2024. Mark C. Toth and Jonathan E. Sweet. All rights reserved.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.