American Committee for US-Russia Accord

The past week has shown, if little else, that President Donald Trump is under immense pressure from Washington’s media and political establishment to pick up where the Biden administration left off and continue to provide Ukraine with a near-limitless supply of military and financial support in its war with neighboring Russia.

Such a policy would, among other things, require Trump to break his long standing campaign promise to end the war or, at a minimum, end our involvement in it. And, as consistency has rarely been noted among the President’s virtues, Trump announced last Monday he would be resuming weapons shipments to Ukraine.

That being said, the spectacle of the Beltway media braying for a prolonged fight with Russia—only weeks after helping to goad Trump into unnecessary and illegal acts of war on Iran—confirms the suspicion that for these professional instigators and spectators, when it comes to war, the appetite grows with the eating.

And so, last week a coordinated media blitz on behalf of Ukraine appears to have been launched in the direction of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. On Tuesday, the Washington Post published an unsigned editorial urging the President to “recommit to Ukraine’s cause.” The editorial noted that Trump was reacting to a Defense Department decision made the previous week to pause weapons transfers. The Post went on to note that:

During his first term, hawks routinely boxed Trump into positions he wasn’t comfortable with. He sidelined many of them. This time, the doves — who fancy themselves “restrainers” — have sought to manipulate the president to advance their isolationist agenda by overstating the limits of American power. Trump needs to bring them to heel.

Which ones exactly? The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has by all accounts been sidelined. No, the culprit here, according to a Politico report published last Tuesday, is said to be Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby. Doing right by its sponsors, which include Boeing and Lockheed Martin, has always been one of Politico’s core strengths. Colby, according to the report, “has made a series of rapid-fire moves that have blindsided parts of the White House and frustrated several of America’s foreign allies.” The story quoted no fewer than 7 unnamed sources in the service of taking the one “restrainer” in the Defense Department down a peg. “He is pissing off just about everyone I know inside the administration,” a source told Politico. 

Surprise, surprise: Politico and the Post are on the same page. Rid the administration of its one or two pesky “restrainers” and all will be well, Ukraine will be saved. One problem among many, as evinced by the cavalier attitude these outlets routinely take towards matters of war and peace, is that the war in Ukraine has been going on for so long (since April 2014), that the reporters and editorialists now covering it appear to have forgotten  (or more likely never really knew in the first place) what the war is actually about (hint: Not Russian Imperialism).  And so we are treated to grandiose pronouncements from the Post that,

The United States needs to stockpile more ammunition and boost capacity to produce it quickly, to ensure America can project power across the globe. But Ukraine needs munitions immediately to survive an ongoing Russian onslaught. Investing in Ukraine’s fight, drawing a large country into the West’s orbit and deterring future Russian aggression, is well worth substantial sacrifice of U.S. materiel — more than the United States is now providing; enough to improve Ukrainian performance on the battlefield. Trump is showing signs that he finally understands all this. He should make sure those who work for him do, too.

Questions as to the morality and efficacy of such power projection rarely if ever get asked by the Post and its Beltway brethren. In essence, the argument seems to be: We must do this because we’ve always done it. Will further arms shipments to Ukraine actually draw Ukraine (or what’s left of it) “into the West’s orbit”? Is this even desirable? (Here the Post might ask the Europeans for an honest estimation of when they plan to welcome Ukraine into the EU). And what “future Russian aggression” are they referring to? Moscow’s plans to thunder through the Fulda Gap? Another question that  never gets asked: How does the matter of who governs the Donbas impinge on US national security? We will wait.

Facts are in short supply. The war of attrition being waged by Russia in Eastern Ukraine cannot and will not be won by the significantly smaller and poorer party to the conflict. Still more, the recent reconstruction conference in Italy failed to produce any significant funds for Ukraine, while last week the World Bank estimated that half-a-trillion dollars would be needed to rebuild the country.

Casualties from the war are by now well over 1 million. Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to stop the carnage. He, as usual, overestimated his own powers of persuasion, but he wasn’t wrong to think that the longer the war drags on, the more dangerous it becomes. 

–David C. Speedie and James W. Carden serve on the Board of ACURA.