And yet Republicans are helping the president avoid responsibility for his inaction.
In a heavily edited taped message to the nation, Joe Biden cast aspersions on Donald Trump “and other Republicans” for likening the treatment endured by the late Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny to what the former president is experiencing in American courts. He used the opportunity presented by Trump’s opportunistic remarks to increase the pressure on House Republicans to take up a Senate-passed measure designed to replenish American ordnance stocks and support America’s embattled foreign partners: Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. “The speaker needs to call a vote,” Biden closed, “so we can stand with Ukraine and send them the supplies they need to defend themselves.”
The video is the latest evidence that Biden plans to lean heavily into the notion that Ukraine’s battlefield setbacks are the result of Republican recalcitrance, and the press is more than happy to play along. “The GOP’s ambivalence on Russia has stalled additional aid to Ukraine at a pivotal time in the war,” the Associated Press observed. “The refusal of pro-Donald Trump Republicans in Congress to extend a military lifeline for Ukraine,” one CNN report read, “show [sic] that Trump is already reshaping geopolitical realities months before his possible White House return.”
House Republicans, who are sharply divided over the utility of continued contributions to Ukraine’s defense, are doing everything in their power to confirm the substance of this indictment. It’s hard to fault Biden and his allies for trying to make political hay out of the GOP’s hostility toward Ukraine’s cause, which recent Pew Research Center polling indicates is supported by not only a supermajority of Americans but a majority of self-described Republicans. The GOP’s internecine squabbles are a gift to Biden, not just because a vocal minority in the Republican House conference has dedicated itself to arguing in favor of an unpopular proposition, but because their conduct obscures the ways in which Biden himself has mismanaged America’s support for the Ukrainian campaign. The president shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.
This week, following months of increasingly desperate requests from Kyiv, the Biden administration is reportedly prepared to drop its objection to giving Ukraine long-range ordnance for use in U.S.-provided Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). The Biden White House has been reluctant to provide Ukraine with weapons that could be used to attack deep inside Russian-held territory, where Moscow stages the forces invading Ukraine. Nevertheless, the administration spent months signaling its willingness to eventually get around to providing Ukraine with long-range rockets. The provocative nature of those weapons plus the Pentagon’s reluctance to deplete American stockpiles without congressional appropriations that guarantee resupply are hardly minor concerns, but it wasn’t the House GOP that shook the Biden administration out of its complacency. It was the clarifying effect of Ukraine’s recent retreats.
The news comes as Ukrainian forces were compelled to abandon the city of Avdiivka. There, forces loyal to Kyiv put up a valiant fight and imposed serious losses on Russian invaders, but the risk of encirclement amid dwindling ammunition supplies had become too acute. Ukrainian forces are facing similar pressure near the city of Robotyne, where Ukraine’s defenders repel wave after wave of advancing Russian troops but retrograde operations may soon become necessary. Kyiv’s ammo shortages “are likely helping Russia launch opportunistic offensive operations along several sectors of the frontline in order to place pressure on Ukrainian forces along multiple axes,” an analysis from the Institute for the Study of War concluded.
The Biden administration is not solely responsible for Ukraine’s debilitating ordnance shortages. Nevertheless, his approach to supporting Ukraine’s campaign against Russian aggression has been typified by anxious dithering almost from the outset.
Since February 2022, the Biden administration adhered to an outlook not at all dissimilar to the one that has recently been adopted by Ukraine-skeptical Republicans, who contend that supporting Kyiv amounts to throwing good money after bad. Battlefield successes would have to come first; U.S. support, second. As I wrote for the magazine in March of last year:
On March 29, Moscow acknowledged the withdrawal of the forces it had committed to the siege of Kyiv. Shortly afterward, Washington consented to expand the scope of the weapons systems it was willing to share with Ukraine, including long-sought heavy artillery. By mid May, the Russian forces had retreated from positions around the eastern city of Kharkiv, breaking the siege and bombardment of this sprawling urban center. The White House followed by finally consenting to provide Ukraine with long-range artillery, including High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS). In early September, Russian troops abandoned the whole of Kharkiv Oblast. Before the end of that month, the Biden White House approved an additional $1.1 billion in Ukrainian security assistance — the largest single tranche up to that point. Russia pulled its troops back from Kherson, the first major city to fall to Russian invading forces, in November. Russian retrenchment helped Washington overcome its reluctance to provide Ukrainian forces with Patriot missile-defense systems and the training to use them. Over the winter, Ukrainian resistance to “spoiling attacks” by Russian forces across what had settled into largely static front lines shook loose Western commitments to provide Ukraine with tanks and half-track vehicles.
In the intervening months, the Biden White House has shifted its approach from waiting to see Ukraine succeed before committing American support to only doing so after it watches Ukraine fail.
Despite Moscow’s documented use of cluster munitions both on Ukraine’s front lines and inside cities, Biden was reluctant to provide Kyiv with similar munitions — at least, until it became clear last summer that Ukraine’s counteroffensive would not produce territorial gains akin to those the Ukrainian resistance achieved in 2022. Ukraine’s lack of progress on the battlefield was foreseeable. Indeed, it was foreseen by the GOP’s more stalwart opponents of Russian aggression.
Likewise, Biden only finally agreed to send Ukraine ATACMS last autumn amid similar Ukrainian battlefield frustrations. The platforms contributed to dramatic Ukrainian victories almost as soon as they were deployed. But that presidential waiver didn’t receive a presidential signature until the Ukrainian advance had stalled outside Russia’s second lines of defense in the occupied territories.
Biden reacted with all due horror in response to Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine, and he immediately committed American national prestige to Ukraine’s cause. But he did not match that obligation with a commensurate dedication of American arms. Throughout this stage of Russia’s decade-long war to end Ukrainian independence, Joe Biden has provided Ukraine with just the support it needs to avoid losing — but not to win. That should provide Republicans with a ready-made argument against Biden’s management of a popular American commitment abroad, but the party’s loudest voices are instead arguing that the president hasn’t dithered enough. In the process, Republicans are giving the president a way to wiggle out of having to take responsibility for his own inaction.
The president may curse the misfortunes that have befallen America’s partners abroad, but he must be thanking his stars for the quality of the opposition he faces at home.
The United States has failed completely. I want results, not excuses. A ruSSian victory could threaten the Union directly.
It is important and essential that the US continue to and increase US support to Ukraine.
That said, The United States has already sent at least $75 billion (and some sources say $100 billion) to Ukraine so far and is the largest financial supporter of Ukraine. If not for this aid Ukraine would have lost a year and a half ago.
Therefor I am confused how “the United States has failed completely???
Except for United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, and the Balts, the vast majority of other NATO countries by any measure have sent only a fraction of the support to Ukraine compared to the US. So apparently twenty five Nato countries have “failed completely” as well? What about our allies in Asia (Japan, South Korea, Australia) that have also only sent a small fraction if what the US has spent?
Two corrections, sorry:
“The United States has already sent at least $75 billion (and some sources say $100 billion) to Ukraine so far”
Sorry, nope, not true. The overwhelming part of that money has been spent in the US, mostly for new weapons for the US army. Ukraine got the old mothballed stuff instead (and the US saved the cost for scrapping that). Dunno why Biden didn’t make that point clear, perhaps to make the deliveries look more generous. Anyway, that’s like you getting your older brother’s used clothes, while he got brand new fashion, and your dad then claiming he had spent that money on you. Not fair? Yeah, my opinion, too.
“Except for United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, and the Balts, the vast majority of other NATO countries by any measure have sent only a fraction of the support to Ukraine compared to the US.”
Well, this may be a consequence of the US being the largest Nato partner, economically and population-wise, by far. Actually five times as populous as France, 5.5 times as Italy, even 7 times as Spain. But rest assured, European nations combined did spent more money on Ukraine than the US, an ongoing calculation found. Even though they don’t use such a weird way of putting a price tag on their donations as Team Biden, afaik.
I think someone is splitting hairs by playing with definitions. The fact is there is at least $75 billion that has been spent that will have to be paid for by US taxpayers at some point. These government expenditures will have to be paid for regardless of what it was spent on. Your apparent belief in “magic money” that never has to be paid back by taxpayers is how the US is $34 trillion in debt.
If you use total dollars or percentage of gdp my statement is true; the vast majority of Nato has spent substantially less than the US.
This doesn’t mean the US shouldn’t maintain and expand its support to Ukraine, but it does mean there is even greater room for Europe and the other Nato nations to step up.
“In the intervening months, the Biden White House has shifted its approach from waiting to see Ukraine succeed before committing American support to only doing so after it watches Ukraine fail.”
Exactly. The word, dithering was made for this guy. This war could have been over with last year had the WH give Ukraine long range missiles, and told mafia land GFY. Instead all we heard was fears about escalation, and mafia land will nuke all and sundry.
Sadly, true, Foccusser. Imho the view by hardcore Dems, that Biden is one of the best presidents, is seriously distorted. Virtually all of “his accomplushments” are in the legislative sector and the result of Dem Congressmen’s hard work. But what’s there to show on the executive side, the White House’s turf? Not much, really. Time and again has Buden proven to be a rather indecisive manager, a guy trying to weasel along without making a determined stand. It shows that he had been a Senator for too long, without any experience as a governor. He simply doesn’t have the spine to lead by example, he’s more of a fine weather sailor than a seasoned captain who can pilot a ship through a storm. With him at the helm, SS United States is running out of steam and coming dangerously close to the cliffs of international failure and political defeat!
One thing is for sure, Mr. Gray, Biden is far, far away from being the best or one of the best presidents. He screwed up our southern border, screwed up the Afghanistan withdrawal, and is screwing up Ukraine’s ability to fight. The last part must be shared with the pro-mafia “Republicans”, of course.
Yeah, all 8 of them.
Whatever, Red. The number is irrelevant at this point. I always assure to mention which “Republicans” I speak of. It could be one or all of them.
It took more than 8 of them to make Mike Johnson speaker.
“Joe Biden has provided Ukraine with just the support it needs to avoid losing — but not to win.”
This harkens me back to before the full on war. Vladolf had Ukraine surrounded and Biden was saying the Moskali were going to invade. He was right, God bless him. But, he also said if the Moskali invade, we’re going to unleash sanctions from hell.
Facepalm…
Biden’s constant dithering and then sending too little all the time, and refusing certain items outright and also refusing permission for Ukraine to attack mafia land with US weapons have proven to be fatal for perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainians, and, concurrently, saved the lives of tens of thousands of brutal roaches. It prolonged the war and the suffering.
How will history pass sentence over him, both as president and as a person?
Well, that’s the 60 billion dollar question, indeed. 🤔
The charges against Trump are simply nonsense. They are entirely for political purposes, and none of them have any substance. All they have accomplished is to make him a martyr and more likely to win in November.
GFY!
A very lucid, rational, well thought out, logical and detailed response????
Multiple independent grand juries thought they had substance.
Why don’t you go read some of the indictments before repeating your nonsense?
Donald J Trump as a person in my opinion is despicable . However In jurisdictions that are 85% democratic (Atlanta, New York City etc) grand juries will indict any Republican but particularly Trump for any reason. There is a well known and old saying, any prosecuting attorney can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
But be aware my Democratic friends, setting a new precedent to aggressively utilize in multiple jurisdictions the courts to eliminate serious political opponents from even being on the ballot and attempting to destroy the said opponent financially through unprecedented legal prosecution in multiple jurisdictions will come back to bite you.
There are many jurisdictions in the US that are 85% Republican with Republican prosecutors as well.
Our “justice system” may be quickly approaching that of a banana republic or Stalin’s Russia. “Show me the man and I will show you the crime” whether it be Donald Trump or in the future the Clintons, Bidens and/or other similar prominent democrats.
President Biden had nothing to do with the Department of Justice investigation, special counsel in charge of the investigation Jack Smith, or the grand jury deliberations.
A federal grand jury brought the indictment, at the behest of a special counsel, named by the attorney general, Merrick B. Garland, precisely to insulate the legal investigation of Mr. Trump from any perceived or real pressure from the president or his political appointees.
Jack Smith, a career prosecutor who is not registered with either political party, was appointed as a special counsel with a guarantee of independence absent manifest wrongdoing on his part.
A ham sandwich can be indicted for a Grand Jury. You need to take the hard left talking points with a grain of salt. Especially when the facts are that these proceedings are unprecedented.
The crimes by a former president are unprecedented.
Imaginary is more like it. Just like the J6 charade, he hasn’t even been charged for that. There’s nothing there. You’ll see.
“J6 charade”
GMAFB!
I posted previously that more than 1,200 people have been charged with crimes related to the events of that day; nearly 900 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted. (The numbers may have gone up since then.)
“he hasn’t even been charged for that” – He was charged with conspiring to defraud the government, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Plus, you’re just referring to J6, and ignoring all the other criminal indictments.