End the ‘too little, too late’ syndrome with U.S. weapons for Ukraine

The White House and its NATO allies still seem determined to deny Ukraine the means to victory over Russian invaders.

When President Joe Biden finally promised to deliver advanced U.S. tanks to Ukraine late last month, I thought the administration had finally overcome its timidity about sending Kyiv the critical weapons systems it needs, including planes and the long-range missile system known as ATACMS.

I was wrong. Once again, Washington and its allies are offering too little, too late. They must not miss the urgent need of the current moment: to help Ukraine block an upcoming Russian offensive and push the Russians back from most occupied territory. Time is not on Ukraine’s side.

» READ MORE: Biden’s birthday present to Zelensky: M1 Abrams and German Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine

At every stage in this war, there has been allied hesitation — or refusal — to send weapons that finally were delivered months later, after Ukraine had sustained terrible damage. This was true about air defenses to protect Ukraine’s cities — like the Patriot system — which the Ukrainians pleaded for from the beginning of the war. It remains true about long-range missile systems to take out Russia’s missile launchers. And too few U.S. and European tanks are slated for delivery, too slowly to fill the urgent need.

The reasons for the delays keep changing. At the beginning of the war, the Biden administration thought the Russians would quickly overtake Kyiv, and it planned to train Ukrainian resistance forces. But Kyiv’s heroic soldiers and civilians routed the Russians.

Then, the excuse was that it would take months to train the Ukrainians, but their highly tech-savvy soldiers quickly mastered any new weapons systems that arrived.

Finally, the explanation was that advanced weapons would be “escalatory,” or lead Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons. However, Russia kept escalating anyway, massively destroying Ukrainian cities.

Moreover, it has become clear that Putin was bluffing with his repeated threats to use tactical nuclear weapons. His supposed “red lines” have been repeatedly crossed, but he has not gone nuclear. Putin clearly understands that using such weapons would boomerang against Moscow and wouldn’t stop the war.

So Ukrainians find it hard to understand the current U.S. reasoning for delays in sending key weapons systems — at a time when Russia is gearing up to throw hundreds of thousands of newly mobilized fighters at Ukrainian forces in human waves. Even if they are poorly trained, the numbers of Russians are daunting.

“I respect President Biden for all the help he has given us and for uniting the allies,” I was told by Oleksiy Goncharenko, a member of parliament from Odesa, who visited Philadelphia this week to give a lecture called “Live Free or Die: Lessons for the Free World from the War in Ukraine” at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. “But how is it,” he queried, “that it was impossible to give us Patriot air defense systems last summer and this January it became possible?

“In the summer we needed Patriots to save our electrical grid [which Russia has badly bombed, forcing Ukrainians to go without heat, water, electricity, and communications in the cold winter]. Now it is too late,” Goncharenko said.

The same question arises over tanks. The 31 M1 Abrams tanks that Biden promised last week won’t arrive for months, or even longer. Biden made a snap decision to finally offer them in order to squeeze German Chancellor Olaf Sholz into green-lighting the delivery of much more suitable Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. The Leopards are badly needed to blunt the Russian offensive.

But the NATO allies have promised only around 100 Leopards, even though there are roughly 2,000 of them in the arsenals of European countries. Ukraine needs hundreds more tanks to adequately confront the mounting Russian efforts. “The U.S. could have sent Abrams tanks months before,” Goncharenko said, “but the allies always seem to be catching up with past events. They need to make the courageous decision to look ahead.”

Specifically, the U.S. needs to start training Ukrainian pilots on F-16 planes and delivering U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems, which have a range of 180 miles. Those ATACMS could enable a Ukrainian counteroffensive to cut off Russia’s land route along the Black Sea coast that supplies its bases in Crimea. That victory alone could change the entire dynamic of the war.

Yet the White House says no ATACMS are on offer and instead is sending a more limited system with a range of around 100 miles, which will be far less effective.

The administration is supposedly worried that Kyiv might use ATACMS to attack bases inside Russian territory. But Ukraine coordinates closely with the U.S. military and has long since proven itself trustworthy. “Give us ATACMS now and we are ready for any restrictions,” Goncharenko insisted.

I asked what he thought was the rationale for the lingering timidity in Washington — and in allied capitals. “I think in some way they are afraid of a Russian defeat,” he said, meaning uncertainty about whether Russia would collapse internally, whether Putin would be replaced, or whether he would remain as a vengeful leader with nukes.

But as Goncharenko pointed out, those challenges are inevitable as Putin destroys his own country in a futile quest to rebuild the Russian empire. The risk will get worse if Russia stalemates the war after bombing Ukraine in its entirety into rubble. Kyiv will keep fighting, since this is an existential war in which Putin’s goal is to destroy Ukraine as a state, along with the language and culture of its people.

» READ MORE: As Russia murders civilians, why won't NATO send weapons to end the war?

However, the cost if no ATACMS are sent will be horrendous for the Ukrainian population. “Russia is sending released convicts to fight and die, but we are losing our finest people,” Goncharenko worried. “How many will we lose in another year, and can we replace them?”

So time is of the essence to Ukraine.

And time is crucial for another critical reason. Polls show that U.S. support for aiding Ukraine is slipping, mainly amongst Republicans. MAGA members in Congress will obstruct aid to Kyiv. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.) has declared that “under Republicans, not another penny will go to Ukraine.”

And Donald Trump, the leading GOP candidate for president, has insisted on Truth Social that he would “negotiate an end” to the Ukraine war “within 24 hours.” Based on his history, that likely means ending U.S. aid to Ukraine and supporting Russia’s right to dominate the country.

It’s time for Biden to end the drip, drip, drip of incremental U.S. military aid to Ukraine and pull NATO allies with him. Give Kyiv the systems it needs now, including ATACMS, to end this war in 2023 — for the sake of U.S. security, and Ukraine’s future. History will judge the Biden foreign policy team on whether this is done.