“Those who urge the supply of weapons to end the war may do with the best intentions,” said one anti-war campaigner, “but the effect is likely to be the opposite.”
Earlier this week, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin openly acknowledged something that analysts and critics of American foreign policy have suspected since Russia attacked Ukraine in February: That one of the Biden administration’s primary objectives in arming Ukrainian forces to the teeth is to severely degrade Russia’s military capacity.
“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Austin told reporters Monday following a visit to Kyiv, where he and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken pledged an additional $713 million in military aid to Ukraine, which has received billions of dollars worth of heavy weaponry from the Biden administration.
“This is a recipe for perpetual war, and monstrous losses and suffering for Ukrainians.”
“We want to see the international community more united,” Austin continued, “especially NATO.”
Insofar as weakening Russia’s military in the short-term is necessary to help Ukraine fend off a deadly and illegal war of aggression, Austin’s summary of U.S. aims was seen by some commentators as perfectly sensible and obvious.
But other observers and anti-war campaigners warned that the Pentagon secretary’s remarks hinted at a longer-term U.S. foreign policy agenda that, if pursued, could prolong warfare in Ukraine and heighten the risk of a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO.
An unnamed congressional source articulated that long-term view to CNN on Tuesday. “The way we are looking at this,” the person said, “is that it’s making an investment to neuter the Russian army and navy for next decade.”
Anatol Lieven, a senior research fellow on Russia and Europe at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in a column on Wednesday that “to judge by its latest statements, the Biden administration is increasingly committed to using the conflict in Ukraine to wage a proxy war against Russia, with as its goal the weakening or even destruction of the Russian state.”
Lieven responded with heavy skepticism to Austin’s claim that weakening Russia is necessary to—in the Pentagon chief’s words—”make it harder for Russia to threaten its neighbors,” which include NATO members such as Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland.
“There is no sign that Russia wants to or indeed could invade any other countries,” Lieven argued. “As far as an attack on NATO is concerned, the miserable performance of the Russian military in Ukraine should have made absolutely clear that this is a fatuous chimera. If Russia cannot capture cities less than 20 miles from Russia’s own border, the idea of an attack on NATO is ludicrous.”
As for Austin’s statement that Ukraine can “win” the war with Russia if the West provides enough military firepower, Lieven stressed that “the question is what ‘winning’ means.”
“If it means preserving Ukrainian independence, freedom to join the European Union, and sovereignty over the great majority of Ukrainian territory, then this is a legitimate and necessary goal,” he wrote. “Indeed, thanks to Ukrainian courage and Western weaponry, it has already to a great extent been achieved.”
“If however what is meant by victory is Ukrainian reconquest—with Western help—of all the areas lost to Russia and Russian-backed separatists since 2014, then this is a recipe for perpetual war, and monstrous losses and suffering for Ukrainians,” Lieven cautioned. “The Ukrainian army has fought magnificently in defense of its urban areas, but attacking entrenched Russian defensive positions across open country would be a very different matter.”
