Let Ukraine Defeat the Russia-Iranian War Machine

Biden’s chronic risk aversion is prolonging the war and making it more costly

By and
45
People look at a residential building destroyed by a Russian drone strike, which local authorities consider to be Iranian-made Shahed-136, in central Kyiv. (Photo by Oleksii Chumachenko/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images.)

Air raid sirens rang in the new year for Kyiv last week as Ukraine faced another crushing barrage of Russian missiles and Iranian drones. Rather than helping Ukraine defend itself for “as long as it takes,” as President Joe Biden recently declared he would, the United States should help Ukraine achieve victory as quickly as possible. It’s a fundamental paradigm shift that starts by giving Kyiv what it needs to destroy the growing terrorism machine along the Russian-Crimean border. 

Faced with a poorly trained and logistically uncoordinated conventional military incapable of taking and holding territory, Russian President Vladimir Putin has turned to a partnership with Iran. Revolutionary Guard trainers from Tehran are on the ground in Russian-occupied Crimea, helping coordinate lethal drone strikes against Ukraine’s civilian population and infrastructure.   

Meeting few effective counterattacks against the drone trainers, operators, and bases, Putin is reportedly in talks with Iran to import short-range ballistic missiles, too. Moscow’s goal is transparent: Intensify the misery of the Ukrainian people while trying the patience of Kyiv’s allies in Europe and America who will grow tired of funding a never-ending war amid the conflict’s myriad economic ripple effects.  

Allowing Russia and Iran to operate freely along the Russian-Crimea border only prolongs the conflict. But the White House doesn’t see it that way. Biden’s chronic risk aversion and deference to Putin’s saber-rattling continues to deny Ukraine the ability to force a complete Russian retreat. 

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
45
By and
Comments (45)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Vickithesmith

    Given the information we have, I agree. However, I read an interesting piece the other day, offering a different hypothesis for Biden's restraint. Basically, he's not worried about provoking Russia -- Russia is already pretty much maximally provoked by the West. He's worried about China, because if China were to openly back Russia with military and economic support, we really are in WWIII.

    The source is iffy, but authoritative if genuine -- a Chinese defector, I believe? I can't quite remember. Regardless, he said that China cut an early deal with the US -- stay within these limits of arms donations, and we, the CCP, will not support Russia on the international stage. That happened when the US was about to send helicopters, and it would explain Biden's sudden and public about-face on that delivery.

    Collapse
  2. Carolyndavid7757

    "Biden’s chronic risk aversion"
    I think this article gives Sleepy Joe way too much credit. These are the non-actions taken by State and so-called Defense.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Jeff Walden

    Mildly silly question:

    "Last year, the White House took days to approve the transfer of Stinger and Javelin missiles to Ukraine after the Russian invasion"

    This phrase contains no-break spaces between all the words in "of Stinger and Javelin missiles", for no obvious reason I can divine. I guess you could argue for between the name and "missiles", and I guess extend that to both missile names. But why also include "of"?

    Or is this just a weird typo, only visible to me because I happened to have my browser window sized just so to reveal it?

    Collapse
  4. GregL

    I don't understand the Biden Administration's slow walk on sending effective weapon stems that could play a part in ending the war more quickly and more decisively. The objective is to defeat the Russian Military, Putin, and Putinism (the whole system that supports him) as quickly as possible and drive them from all Ukrainian soil. Biden's approach is like throwing a 20 ft. rope to a man that is drowning 25 ft. away. I also want to know the source of this reluctance. Is it Biden? Is it his advisor's SecDef? SecState? Joint Chiefs ("Squishy" Milley)?, other advisors? Defeating Russia now pays dividends that directly benefit US interests e.g ending Russia's adventurism and meddling in Africa and Latin America.

    Oh and Ukrainian weapons, including M777 howitzers and HIMARS can already hit Russian Soils...send ATACMS and other long-range weapon systems, and train them up on F16s and A-10s .... now.

    Collapse
    1. Carolyndavid7757

      Democrat administrations have been taking military action too little and too late since or not at all since - at least - Carter. When Reagan was elected, we thought we had put Vietnam syndrome behind us. But it is a Democrat syndrome.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Francesca

    Thanks

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Mike B

    I was talking to my Dad last night and asked what he thought about US support for Ukraine. I like his answer: "It seems we'll send them everything Putin lets us."

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    One hundred percent! Let’s give the Ukrainians everything they need.

    Collapse
  8. Russell J

    I agree with helping Ukraine win as much as anyone. Thinking that some magic weapon is going to make Russia back down seems overly simplistic at this point so the blame tone is wrong here. The problem is really complicated by the fact that Russia is willing to take unreasonable losses to cling to this slice of territory. The original invasion showed the limits of long range missiles in defeating a determined resistance. The U.S. response over the past year is tough to criticize on the whole.

    Collapse
    1. Carolyndavid7757

      Putin is unwilling to take unreasonable losses.

      Collapse
      1. Russell J

        I might misunderstand here but my opinion is he has already lost an enormous amount of his Army and also much of his influence. He even got NATO to join arms again. That’s an unreasonable loss in my book.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Andy Napoli

    Totally agree. Russia should be fearing America’s escalation. Not the other way around.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    The authors are just wish casting more ConWar bad thinking here. Days of delay. Hours of delay. This article is a misrepresention of the important facts and realities.

    A. Biden has more lethal armament directly killing those depraved murdering Russians, than any President in history.
    B. The amount of and lethality of our military aid to Ukraine is superb.
    C. The authors argue a marginal case basednon their would a could a warrior philosophy. We've had enough of this misguided thinking
    D. Because the authors and their aligned policy pundits....utterly failed the United States in after 9/11.
    E. Invading Iraq instead of where bin Laden was, in Afghanistan was a green light for Putin to invade Ukraine later.
    F. The Iraq misguided and corruptly portrayed misadventure ..... had a Major Strategic Downside: Bush-Cheney took their eye off Putin as did the CIA and Defense Department.

    So.. the authors are peddling for the Defense contractors and not recognizing Biden and his team's measured, yet extremely strong and unwavering efforts for Ukraine.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      PaulH

      I seem to recall that we did invade Afghanistan. So I am not sure what your Bin Laden point is.

      While you accuse the writers of misrepresentations, you don't actually show any. Instead you provide a bunch of bullet points that do nothing to undermine their argument.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        Bush-Cheney had the weakest military response in American history to Afghanistan.

        They only had 20,000 troops in Afghanistan in 7 years.

        FDR in 12 months had 300,000 troops fighting the Japanese and Nazi on 2 fronts. Je didn't have the modern advantages of Jet Transports and 3x faster ships.

        Gravest mistake by a President ever to invade Iraq. No enemy in Iraq. But a few Trillion wasted on killing a few hundred thousand innocent children and women and men.

        Putin say this. Putin 100% knew Iraq had zero WMD. But Putin saw the change of American doctrine. Which for Bush and Putin became.... fabricated reasons . justify invasions.

        The authors at this FDD are Warrior Conservatives. They want to project more US Military effort. I'm sute these boys are Defense Industry surrogates. No thanks. Not again

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Dexember

      I see this all the time: people equating ALL interventionists with those who want more intervention now. As if the failure of an intervention in the past to achieve its objectives, or to be run competently, means that all future interventions are to be suspect.

      Shall I say that all of your non-interventionist appeasement led to World War 2 when we should have stopped Hitler sooner? Why should we EVER listen to another non-interventionist after they failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda?

      That line of argument is specious.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        I infer that you agree with my points.

        I agree with you that America, when needed in the 1930s, the Great Generation of my parents et al, were cowards, many antisemitic and were against any efforts by FDR to help Europe and the Jewish people.

        Of course Israel, having suffered the Holocaust was a cowards regarding Rwanda, and still is a coward. They are shameful for bowing to Putin and not supporting Ukraine.

        I don't think you can in anyway say I am not 100% for ongoing and increasing Ukraine support.

        I'm just opposed to these ivory tower war mongering types who authored this ridiculous essay.

        Collapse
Load More