FROM THE CORRESPONDENT FROM WASHINGTON. Adam Kinzinger, Republican, close to the neocons and fiercely anti-Trump, a few days ago presented a draft law to authorize Biden to use force to restore “the territorial integrity of Ukraine”. The use of American soldiers on Ukrainian soil, however, is the only barrier that the White House has not overcome. For the rest, however, the Administration has decidedly embraced the escalation line starting from mid-March, moving the limit of the allowed further and further forward. While the distinction between lethal and defensive weapons remains, there is no doubt that Biden has tailored arms deliveries to needs on the ground. “War has its own rhythms and demands,” Lloyd Austin explained to him.
Yet, some doubts about the US strategy are beginning to filter also within the Administration. The first discontent spread through the corridors of think tanks and government offices. The G7 yesterday in its document reaffirmed the defense of Ukrainian territorial integrity and its sovereignty and reiterated its support for “the necessary assistance” of the military. The Pentagon – now a month ago – was the first to say that Ukraine could win the conflict and that the return to the borders before 2014 was the goal. Since then there has also been an increase in war supplies and sharing of sensitive information with Ukrainians.
Biden, annoyed by the leak of news on intelligence this week, reprimanded not only the CIA but also the Defense, inviting them to avoid describing in enthusiastic tones the successes and actions of the Ukrainians in order not to further irritate Putin who now believes he is fighting a war against. America more than against Zelensky’s soldiers.
It is mainly Antony Blinken and Victoria Nuland, the State Department’s chief adviser on Russia, who are pushing for the hard line. In the circles of US diplomacy, reference is often made to the “strong anti-Russian sentiment that Blinken has harbored for years, ever since he was in the White House with Obama”. His uncompromising line, fueled by Nuland, a veteran of Ukraine and in 2014 in Maidan with young pro-Europeans, however, would now meet – informed sources explain – resistance within the National Security Council. Jake Sullivan would like less emphasis on victory and a more pragmatic approach that would also help keep Europeans less keen on US war rhetoric aligned. For now, the definition of Russia as a “sponsor state of terrorism” is in fact still in the offices of Foggy Bottom and the rumors of the efforts to brand Putin as a “war criminal” have also been silenced, obviously the hypothesis of his dethronement has no basis. . “The crux – explains an official – is understanding how to get out of this situation”.
“It’s up to Zelensky to say what victory is,” Blinken said recently in a briefing to reporters. But after putting 4.5 billion in aid on the plate since August 2021 and asking for $ 33 billion in funding from Congress, Biden can’t afford to comply with Zelensky’s will. To which, however, he continues to show total support. Concrete, such as weapons and economic aid; and symbolic. The visit yesterday by First Lady Jill Biden who met Olena Zelenska across the border between Slovakia and Ukraine goes in this direction. But you don’t solve the American dilemma: where is the line between victory and defeat?