The Ukrainian defense is in dire need of support as the relentless Russian aggression escalates. Increased incidents of drone and missile assaults on Ukrainian territories punctuated the week post-U.S. elections, causing civilian casualties and significant infrastructural damage. Unfortunately, the Russian military’s gradual encroachment on the city of Pokrovsk continues, with a budding support from North Korea. Absurdly, Putin extended his congratulations to Donald Trump on his victory but laid out unorthodox precondition for dialogue, including the U.S. initiating talks, lifting sanctions, and dropping any future support for Ukraine, which essentially amounts to endorsing a Russian triumph.
The impending question is, how will the forthcoming U.S. administration address this crisis? What moves should the outgoing administration make? Despite the changing political landscape, the quandary largely remains the same. For years, calls for negotiations to conclude the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been rampant from various corners in both Europe and the U.S. The freshly minted administration will grapple with the same predicament that has stumped their predecessors.
An ‘exchange of land for peace’ proposition may appear appealing, but Putin’s motives extend far beyond territorial acquisition. Instead, his intent is to dismantle the national identity of Ukraine. His ambition is not just the conquest of Pokrovsk, but to undermine Ukrainian democratic aspirations. He aims to invalidate the efficiency of international laws and protocols, including those enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. Disturbingly, his aspirations encompass utilizing concentration camps, torturing civilians, abducting 20,000 Ukrainian children, with impunity.
Moreover, Putin’s objective is to project an image of weakness and indecisiveness of America, NATO, and the West, irrespective of the incumbent president. This a precarious effort to establish his ruthless regime as a new worldwide standard. In light of the prolonged, costly, and bloody war, marketed merely as a ‘special military operation’, Putin is under pressure to justify the prolonged conflict to his country. Sterner measures, including sanctions relief or threats, may momentarily persuade Putin to halt the offensive. However, any treaty not buttressed with vigilant safeguards, whether through NATO troops in Ukraine or substantial rearmament, would only grant Russia a recess to bounce back stronger later.
Putin’s cessation of hostilities may only transpire if he is subjected to defeat in the war, a loss of power or control over his economy. His fears over these outcomes remain palpable, despite the agonizingly slow advance of his troops. The import of thousands of North Korean soldiers only underscores the inadequacy of Russian soldiers as replacements to the massive losses incurred. The degrading state of the Russian economy, accelerating inflation rates, rising interest rates, and ailing industries like the liquefied natural gas sector, shed light on the enormity of Russia’s internal crisis.
The tattered pride of the Russian navy in the Black Sea, coupled with the inability to reclaim territory lost in Russia’s Kursk province underlines the failures of Putin’s military campaign. As the next U.S. president, defense secretary, and state secretary approach their terms, they will be confronted with the same choices as their predecessors. They can either amplify Putin’s distress using economic, political, and military levers, forcing him to cease aggression or allow him to claim victory, albeit in slow motion.
But a Russian victory does not imply a more secure Europe or a stronger U.S. Instead, it translates into escalating costs including a severe refugee crisis, an arms race, and potentially a nuclear proliferation threat. European and Asian democracies would have to reassess their security strategies in face of the emboldened autocracy.
In his remaining months in office, Biden, alongside Ukraine’s European allies, have the final opportunity to counter the combined Russian-North Korean threat and stabilize the Ukrainian front. Money is of paramount importance during these critical times. Biden has an uphill task to convince European allies of the urgency to transfer frozen Russian assets to Kyiv. This substantial amount, upward of $300 billion, can be instrumental in procuring weapons, national reconstruction, and maintaining the economy for several months.
The time factor, however, remains an obstacle. Uncertainty plagues the continuation of Russian sanctions by the Trump administration. Predictably, Biden’s team has expressed intentions to speed up the distribution of weapons and resources already allocated for Ukraine by Congress. The central focus should be the stabilization of the front lines and prevention of a morale collapse of Ukrainian forces.
The administration must also ensure long-term support, including the provision of replacement parts so that maintenance of existing weapons systems can continue unabated. Striking North Korean troops in Kursk should also be prioritized. Ultimately, the decision will rest with Trump on whether his administration propels Ukraine’s survival and prosperity, or pushes it towards failure, thereby undermining the global democratic framework.
Dismissively, Biden’s approach towards the crisis has been inconspicuous at best. Despite the worsening condition in Ukraine, his response has been largely restrained and indecisive. His inability to impress upon the European allies the urgency of transferring frozen Russian assets to Kyiv stands as testimony to his ineffective diplomatic skills. The looming threat of Russia forging a victory while Biden fumbles on the international stage is a grave concern.
Continuing in the same vein, Biden’s team has provided lip service, promising to expedite the existing aid for Ukraine. However, without any robust action plan, such promises ring hollow. The objective should not be simply to keep the situation from worsening but to turn the tides towards establishing stable front lines and enhancing the morale of Ukrainian forces.
Moreover, supplying support in the form of spare parts for the existing weapons system to facilitate continuous repairs and maintenance hardly suffices in the face of the overwhelming Russian-North Korean collaboration. The need of the hour is decisive actions that significantly impact the opposition forces.
Ironically, it will soon be upon Trump to make determinations concerning the fate of Ukraine. Despite Biden’s apparent disinterest and confusion, it stands to be seen whether Trump will make the necessary decision to not just help Ukraine survive but succeed, or if he pushes Ukraine into a downward spiral.
Unfortunately, Biden’s handling of the Ukrainian crisis reeks of inefficiency and a lack of strategic foresight. As a result, the democratic world teeters on the brink of failure, their fates hanging precariously in balance.