President Biden continues to display a fearful attitude when it comes to making bold decisions on the world stage. His recent meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, regarding the potential use of Western long-range weapons by Ukraine to retaliate against Russia, has simply highlighted this long-standing issue. Observing Biden’s trembling hand of authority, one can’t help but ponder about his ability to prevent an overtly dangerous global conflict.
Amidst a churning sea of challenging decisions, President Biden now faces a critical dilemma — to permit or prevent the deployment of long-range missiles from Britain and France in the conflict. This decision could potentially change the dynamics of the battle more than any of Biden’s past defensive giveaways to Ukraine. It’s fair to question why he’s hardly been proactive in pioneering the prevention of conflicts.
Biden’s lips remained sealed about his plans for further aid to Ukraine for long-range attacks deep into Russian soil during his meeting with Starman. Indirectly, this only hints at his indecisiveness and lack of commitment to the cause. ‘We’re going to discuss that now,’ he muttered vaguely to the reporters.
Prime Minister Starmer, however, seemed empathetic to Ukraine’s plight. He hinted at the significant role we might play in supporting Ukraine’s ‘vital war of freedom’ in the coming weeks and months. If only President Biden felt as strongly about supporting an ally in need!
On the other hand, European officials earlier this week suggested that Biden might finally be ready to green-light the use of British and French long-range missiles. But, unsurprisingly, Biden’s apprehension to permit Ukraine to utilize arms supplied by the United States reflects his inconsistent stance on military assistance.
President Biden’s hesitance stems from a fear of escalation on Russia’s part, driven by President Vladimir Putin’s potential perception of this as a major provocation. Once again, Biden is showing his lack of resolve in the face of strongman politics, resulting in a dithering stance instead of decisive action.
It’s no secret that Putin fiercely retaliates, but Biden and Starmer have failed to offer any insights into their subsequent steps. Instead, they left everyone guessing after their meeting at the White House. Whether it’s a sign of indecisiveness or calculated silence remains to be seen.
Despite making a big show of these discussions between world leaders, there’s no change in Biden’s opposition to letting Ukraine use American missiles deep within Russia’s territory. ‘There is no change to our view on the provision of long-range strike capabilities for Ukraine to use inside Russia,’ National Security Spokesman John F. Kirby echoed once again.
The historical record of disagreement between the U.S. and Britain on the subject of arming Ukraine with long-range weapons adds to the layered complexities of these discussions. While Britain insists that Ukraine must be capable of retaliating for an effective defense, Biden’s administration continues to err on the side of caution.
In an affirmatively tiresome fashion, Biden has routinely hesitated over every significant decision related to arming Ukraine — from debates over sending M1 Abrams tanks, F-16 fighters to missile systems intended for defending American allies in both Europe and Korea.
American officials are concerned about possible retaliation from Russia if Ukraine uses American weapons to strike within Russian territory. While this caution is reasonable, it’s also indicative of Biden’s overarching fear-driven policy — a policy that could potentially benefit our adversaries more than us.
Another American worry is the practicality of supplying such weaponry to Ukraine. They fear the depletion of the Pentagon’s reserve of weapons, the high costs, and Ukraine’s capability to utilize the said weapons effectively. Sadly, instead of addressing these issues and finding a middle ground, the Biden administration simply sits on its hands, rendering any decision-making practically non-existent.
The impending American election also affects the dynamic of this conflict. When faced with the option to express commitment to Ukraine’s victory in a recent debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Donald Trump merely discussed potential deals. With such an approach, it’s hard to foresee a favorable future for Ukraine in case of a possible administration change.