Biden’s rallying global support for Ukraine but struggling at home

Biden’s recent visits to Ukraine and Poland send a strong signal to Moscow about America’s resolve, which is critical to not just Kyiv, but to America’s European allies as well. Yet, if the West’s political will is to be sustained, the White House must begin considering how this flight may end and where America’s interest lay. It must also spend more capital and energy convincing the American people of both.  

In both visits, the White House hoped to convey to both Kyiv and Moscow that America’s political, economic, military and moral support will not ebb. This is, of course, a critical message delivered at a critical time. As Russia’s spring offensive is underway, Moscow is banking that it will be able to deploy its troops faster and achieve battlefield successes faster than the West can send arms to Ukraine. The Kremlin is also hoping that it can outlast Western political will and resolve, both of which — along with the material support that flows from both — are critical to Ukraine’s success.  

The delta between Russian mobilization and the Western armament of Ukraine is where the next phase of the battle will be decided. In the longer term, the aid from the United States and Europe will almost certainly overwhelm Russia. New M1 Abrams tanks, Patriot missile batteries and increasingly capable and lethal weapons systems will out-range and out-perform Russia’s forces. This is a fight that Moscow cannot win in the long term, so long as the West’s support continues, something that cannot and should not be taken for granted.  

The president’s message is vital to European capitals as well. If American resolve is seen to falter, European support will waver, as well. That the alliance has held together as strongly as it has for as long as it has, despite rising domestic political and economic pressure, reflects the shared consensus of the importance of support to Ukraine.  

This consensus is also predicated on the willing avoidance of key questions as to how this fight ends and where the red lines may or may not be. Saying how the war ends is “up to Ukraine” places the agency alone on Kyiv and adjures any responsibility from Western capitals. Yet the potential for friction between Washington, its European counterparts and the Western alliance and Kyiv is rapidly approaching. Simply hoping that friction will not emerge is a recipe for strategic failure.  

French President Emmanuel Macron said that he wants “Russia to be defeated in Ukraine” but there are those that “want to, above all else, crush Russia. That has never been the position of France and it will never be our position.” Macron’s stance is and has been largely criticized as out of step with European and Western sensibilities, as pandering to Moscow and to Putin. This is indicative of the aforementioned friction.  

In an interview with the BBC, Volodymyr Zelensky said that there would be territorial concessions for a peace agreement with Russia. This maximalist goal is laudable and sensible. Why should Ukraine relinquish any territory in the face of Russian aggression? Simply put, it shouldn’t. The question then becomes: To what borders will Ukraine and Russia return? Pre-2022? To the 2014 border pre-Crimea annexation? The answer to that core question has considerable second and third order strategic questions.

 If Kyiv’s goals include the annexation of Crimea, will the West’s support for Ukraine continue? Equally, if Russian lines are pushed sufficiently back toward Russia proper and/or the West provides weapons like the ATACMS with greater range, will Washington acquiesce to Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory? One can see quickly how these long-avoided strategic questions become strategic realities given battlefield conditions.  

Biden’s efforts overseas also need to be better matched by efforts at home in the United States. While important, there is far too much time being spent by this White House and its supporters convincing those who are already convinced of the importance of America to Ukraine. There is too much nodding of heads and clapping of hands by the already agreeable commentariat and far too little engagement with those who are unsure or unclear as to why this fight matters.  

If America’s political resolve is critical to the continued support for Ukraine, and it is, the White House should be spending more time at home explaining why that matters to the American people. There are increasing questions from across the country as to why so much money is being sent to Ukraine at a time when there are not inconsiderable problems here in the United States. These calls are nothing new and almost always reflect any overseas activity, but in the White House’s silence, the void is filled up by not just questions, but the wrong answers as well.  

Earlier this month Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced a bill in the House to end aid to Ukraine calling for the United States to “end its military and financial aid to Ukraine and urges all combatants to reach a peace agreement.” A wholly political move by the representative from Florida, it is a dog whistle to the increasingly vocal critics of support for Ukraine. The position held by the bill’s backers is gaining traction in the absence of clear articulation from the White House and also Republican supporters of Ukraine.  

Foreign wars never stay foreign and America’s failure to support Ukraine over the long term will breed more instability. Achieving peace through victory will provide stability that will improve the economy and Americans’ bottom lines. The country’s support for Kyiv is about supporting the rule of law against an outdated model of national behavior. Acquiescing Moscow now is to only invite further predation from Russia in the future or other countries with designs on their neighbors. America’s support for Europe and Ukraine is enhancing Europe’s security architecture which, in the long run, will allow America to focus on its strategic competitor in China in the Indo-Pacific.  

Biden missed a chance with the State of the Union to speak clearly to the American people. While his visit to Ukraine and Poland was about European resolve, he would do well to take a turn at home. Assuming the political resolve will remain is just as risky a bet as Russia’s assumption that it can outlast the West. 

Joshua C. Huminski is director of the Mike Rogers Center for Intelligence & Global Affairs at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress, and a George Mason University National Security Institute Fellow. He can be found on Twitter @joshuachuminski.