Wanted: An honest discussion about the US endgame in Ukraine
Peter Laffin
In a press briefing on Tuesday morning, Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, press secretary for the Department of Defense, repeated the Pentagon’s line on the United States’s position on the conflict in Ukraine: “We’ve been clear on this from the beginning: We are not at war with Russia. We don’t seek conflict with Russia. Our focus is on supporting Ukraine and enabling them.”
This delicate parsing has been oft repeated over the course of the past year. And while it’s always been ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of the public, it’s never appeared quite as farcical as it did Tuesday, as it came following the announcement that the Pentagon has committed to an additional $500 million in military aid to Ukraine, including Bradley fighting vehicles, Stryker armored personnel carriers, and munitions for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems. Ukraine’s stunning defense of its country against the Russian aggressor has largely come as a result of its superior conventional weaponry, which has been supplied by the U.S. and its NATO allies. Since the Russian invasion, the U.S. alone has provided $40 billion in security assistance.
UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME PAYMENTS: CASH GIVEAWAY PROGRAMS EXPAND DESPITE MIXED RESULTS
Consider for a moment the sheer absurdity of Ryder’s framing of the U.S.’s position in this light, which would never fly in an analogous circumstance in everyday life. On what planet is it possible to send $40 billion worth of military equipment to a combatant in a military conflict and not be in conflict, or even seeking conflict, with the other side? While it may seem clever to the international relations majors running our Defense Department, the stated U.S. position is utterly at odds with reality.
To be certain, the obfuscation as it pertains to the Biden administration’s endgame in Ukraine is and always has been strategic. There can be no doubt that the unofficial yet operative U.S. endgame in Ukraine is the downfall of the Putin regime in Russia. Of course, Biden officials cannot just come out and say this, since it would open the floodgates for a vigorous public debate over the wisdom of going to war with a nation that possesses the most nuclear warheads of any on Earth, including the U.S., and is headed by an unstable (and potentially terminally ill) autocrat who is growing increasingly desperate to maintain his position.
If the public were truly aware of the gravity of the situation, it would no longer be possible for the Biden administration to send billions into the Ukrainian battlefield unquestioned. And so they continue tediously to tiptoe around the issue and hope that the public, who enjoy the protection of two oceans and relatively stable neighbors to the north and south, remain passively supportive of the effort and continue to brandish Ukrainian flags on their business fronts and bumpers in order to appear virtuous to their neighbors. So long as the public remains confused and disengaged, the Biden administration is free to pursue its intended objective — regime change in Russia — without having to answer uncomfortable questions from within.
As the presidential election season commences, the nation would do well to undertake a serious and overdue debate over just what the hell we’ve gotten ourselves into in Ukraine. There appears to be wide disagreement within the parties themselves, and the candidates appear less willing to offer a clear answer on Ukraine, never mind a clear moral vision, than on any other issue.
Here’s what I’d like to ask each candidate, which is what I believe the public deserves to know: Beneath the posturing, are we combatants, or aren’t we? What’s the endgame here? And most importantly, what’s the plan to win the peace?
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Peter Laffin is a contributor at the Washington Examiner and the founder of Crush the College Essay. His work has also appeared in RealClearPolitics, the Catholic Thing, the National Catholic Register, and the American Spectator.