And so it begins. Or ends, depending on how you look at it. At the Washington Post Josh Rogin recounts an exchange between Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and visiting U. S. Congressmen:
Speaking to a delegation of five U.S. lawmakers last week in Kyiv, Zelensky repeated his requests for more and better U.S. weapons. He also revealed that he has been asking the Biden administration to deploy U.S. military personnel in Kyiv to improve U.S.-Ukraine coordination on all aspects of the war, three of those lawmakers told me.
Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) asked the Ukrainian president whether he supported sending more U.S. military personnel into Ukraine to boost coordination. Zelensky jumped at the idea.
“As soon as I raised it, he cut me off and said, ‘We’ve been asking for it. We’d welcome it. We’ve proposed that,’†said Waltz, who told me, “The problem is with the White House.â€
Zelensky proposed that U.S. and Ukrainian military personnel form three joint coordination cells, focused on planning, logistics and strategic communications. Waltz said U.S. troops would not be deployed to the front lines. They would work out of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, which is struggling right now to reestablish operations with a skeleton staff.
It should be noted that sending American soldiers to Ukraine is not a popular idea. Opinion varies from 22% in favor to 40% in favor, depending on how it is phrased (Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, NORC). I find the notion that State and Defense are only now realizing that once Russians have dug into Ukraine they will be quite difficult to dislodge not credible. If it is true, we need a new State Department and Department of Defense.
Arguments in favor include improved oversight (they’re only thinking about oversight now?) and improved training.
There’s one major argument against. Doing that would make those forces legitimate targets of war. I should note that it has been argued that no target is a legitimate target because Russia’s war against Ukraine is an illegal one. We have never taken that view with respect to our own illegal wars which include Iraq and Syria. By that argument every American who participated in either Iraq or Syria is guilty of a war crime.
I do not understand the relish for great power war that seems to be overtaking us these days.
I am appalled by the idea of US troops in Ukraine. The US, UK, France and other NATO countries have been operating SOCOM forces in Ukraine since before the coup in 2014, but they try to stay under cover and are not a big provocation. Russia has been doing the same. It is also rumored that the HIMARS units are being operated by Americans, possibly out-of-uniform mercenaries.
But, uniformed troops on the ground are an in-your-face escalation. The Russians would almost certainly escalate their attacks, and they would likely increase the 10% or so of their forces current deployed.
This goes along with the provocation of the proposed visit of Pelosi to Taiwan. The Chinese are going BS crazy, and they have made all sorts of implied threats to use military force. I think it is certain that a Pelosi visit to Taiwan would touch off a large Asian war, perhaps on the scale of WW II.
Then there is North Korea. If China and the US start shooting, won’t Kim try for reunification?
We have a Ruling Class that is nuts. If you are in a big city, get out.
Actually, they’ve made explicit threats which IMO is quite dangerous. They may back themselves into a corner.
Just based on my historical experience of such things, I am pretty certain there are non-trivial numbers of US personnel in Ukraine already in addition to various types of off-site assistance made possible by videoconferencing technology. The Executive’s Title 50 authorities are extensive. These wouldn’t be uniformed personnel.
At the same time, there are undoubtedly Ukrainian liaisons in NATO countries. That is completely normal.
While I think there would be some advantages to Ukraine from a small formal, uniformed US military presence for coordination, I think this is mostly about optics and a desire by Ukraine to drag the US into being much more involved in the conflict.
As you might guess, I think that would be foolish. Despite Biden’s gaffes and missteps in other areas, it’s good to see that his administration understands the fundamentals, and it’s good the WH has resisted this request. I hope they continue to do so.
In short, there is no strategic need to escalate our involvement beyond supplying weapons and intelligence.
I think that’s right.
Rep. Waltz I believe wants U.S. troops back in Afghanistan, there are just some people who don’t want to miss out on a good party. I’m sure there are a number of Congressman who want Biden to provide more military support, but they don’t seem to be consequential in numbers, some of them appear unlikely to be in the next Congress.
“Rep. Waltz I believe wants U.S. troops back in Afghanistan, there are just some people who don’t want to miss out on a good party.”
I think that’s a significant misrepresentation, PD. Waltz has been very critical about how the Afghan withdrawal was conducted and is especially sensitive to the plight of those who risked their very lives as US informants.
His essential point is that Biden’s own intelligence team briefs him, in his Commitee position, that Al Quada will be resurgent, with intent to train there and subsequently attack US interests, including the US. His fear is that special ops forces will be required (not some party desire) to go back to disrupt their operations. However, no one will trust us now, making the task much more difficult and dangerous.
His concerns can be debated, but your characterization is rather crass.
“…I think this is mostly about optics and a desire by Ukraine to drag the US into being much more involved in the conflict.”
Probably correct. However, I think the issue is whether we (and other western countries) play war, or do war. Bleeding the Ukrainian people drop by drop seems particularly ghoulish. Florida’s Walsh makes this point. Giving just enough aid to bleed the Russians, while destroying Ukraine, only serves the interests of the current US military, arms manufacturers, Ukraine oligarchs and politicians looking for an image.
Colin Powell observed that the biggest lesson of Viet Nam as far as fighting a war was, either apply maximal force and get it over, or don’t do it at all. As I say, using the citizenry as fodder is particularly ghoulish.
Drew, I certainly think Biden can be criticized for handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, but I don’t confuse that with any desire to keep troops there. Waltz wrote a piece on August 13, 2021, just two days before Kabul fell urging Biden to reverse course, engage air power and small groups of special forces to crush the Taliban offensive. He warned that “our soldiers will have to go back; but without local bases, far less intelligence, and local allies that have been decimated.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/afghanistan-leadership-rep-michael-waltz
That strikes me as an outlier position not shared by many in Congress, just as I think his interest in deploying U.S. troops in Ukraine is an outlier.
“Bleeding the Ukrainian people drop by drop seems particularly ghoulish.”
As compared to what other options exactly?
This is one of those situations where any choice comes with significant risks and downsides. On the one hand, we could do nothing, and then how much Ukrainian blood would be spilled if no one was helping them? On the other hand, we could spill our own blood for Ukraine and risk nuclear annihilation in the process.
I don’t particularly like the middle path, but see the alternatives as worse options.
When I read these posts on how involved we should be with Ukraine, there is little mention how involved we were with “freeing†Crimea when Putin invaded that country under Obama’s watch. In that Russian invasion didn’t we just “let it be?†Didn’t we rationalize that Crimea had a large Russian population, and it’s geographical closeness to Russia was a good fit for such a takeover by the mother country?
When examining Ukraine, what is substantially different from Crimea, except for the dramatic appeal of it’s president, Zelensky, who dons military olive green, asks for an abundance of sophisticated armaments, and poses for a magazine cover with his wife, looking hauntingly photogenic? Why, and to what ends, is our endless, costly supply of arms doing any good for the people of Ukraine?
In the meantime countless Ukrainian civilian’s blood is being shed, infrastructure and communities destroyed, as our own personal artillery is dwindling by giving it over to Ukraine, in the midst of China showing increasing disrespect to our “leaders†and muscular threats as it trains it’s ambitions on Taiwan
Consequently, I really question a foreign policy that seems not only feckless, but also having no tangible successes in it’s end game.
“and is especially sensitive to the plight of those who risked their very lives as US informants.”
Then he should have lobbying to get them out sooner. He didnt or at least I cant find any record of it. He wanted us to stay in Afghanistan and would not be surprised if he wanted us to stay in Iraq. Fortunately he is just one Republican politician. I suspect he is a true believer and is generally pro war which is not as popular as it was in the GOP 10-20 years ago. There are a number of other Republicans who will just oppose whatever Biden supports. That said, in this case I am not really seeing much push to openly send troops to Ukraine.
I am not really understanding the weird idea that we are the ones using Ukraine as fodder. We arent forcing them to fight. Do we really not understand that a sovereign country would be willing to fight to maintain its sovereignty when attacked by an aggressor? You people really have gone soft.
Steve