Biden’s Address Must Correct for His Failure to Outline a Ukraine Strategy

L ast weekend, Congress passed a spending bill to keep the government open, but, because of resistance from House Republicans, the bill did not include new financial assistance for Ukraine. Mainstream accounts chalked up GOP opposition to isolationist sentiment within the party, but this analysis misplaces the blame. GOP skepticism is partly a result of Biden’s lack of a clear plan for Ukraine. If Biden wants to win over Republicans on Capitol Hill — including those like J. D. Vance, who thinks that the president is doing too much, and those like Tom Cotton, who thinks he is not doing enough — then he needs to lay out a compelling strategy for victory to the American people.

Let us look at what former House speaker Kevin McCarthy said about GOP opposition to additional aid to Ukraine in a press conference. He asked rhetorically, “What is the plan for victory? I think that is what the American public wants to know.”

After all, congressional Republicans have supported the war effort for the past year and a half. With Russia as the clear aggressor and Ukraine valiantly fighting for its very survival, Republicans joined in passing bipartisan legislation to send billions of dollars’ worth of aid and military equipment to Ukraine.

But we are now 19 months into this conflict, and Republicans are rightly asking, What comes next? Biden has yet to deliver a major prime-time address to the nation making the case for why Ukraine matters for American interests, laying out his plan for securing those interests, and asking the American people for their support. He now says he plans to make such a speech; this is welcome news, but he must provide clarity.

We have talked to House Republicans who are personally supportive of aiding Ukraine but who report that they have a hard time persuading their skeptical colleagues, because they cannot in good faith explain — much less defend — Biden’s strategy. A good strategy starts with clear goals, but what is Biden’s desired end state in Ukraine? Is it for Ukraine to take back all the territory currently occupied by Russian forces? Is the plan to fight to a stalemate in order to achieve a cease-fire and peace negotiations? Does Biden plan to contain Moscow with continuous conflict in Ukraine?

With an aggressive Russia on its border, how will Ukraine be secured over the long term? Does Biden envision Ukraine eventually joining NATO, or will the West provide Kyiv with large-scale military assistance along the lines of an Israel model?

Biden has not yet provided answers to these basic questions. Instead, he offers the uninspiring promise to support Ukraine “as long as it takes.” But this only raises the question “As long as it takes to do what?” It is no wonder that a vow for interminable economic support combined with amorphous military objectives are leading to comparisons to the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After defining his goals, Biden should lay out the major lines of effort that will get him there. If he favors Ukrainian victory, he is not acting like it. Instead, the drip-drip-drip of military assistance is leading to a long and bloody war that appears likely to result in military stalemate.

Fearing escalation with Russia, the Biden administration has continually opposed sending many major weapons systems to Ukraine, only to reverse course and provide them later. One by one, he said no and then yes to multiple rocket launchers (HIMARS), tanks, Patriot air and missile defense systems, fighter jets, cluster munitions, and army tactical missile systems (ATACMS). This continual flip-flopping contributes to the perception that Biden is not quite sure what he is doing.

Senate Republicans, including Mitch McConnell and James Risch, have explained their views of American interests in Ukraine, but they are not the commander in chief, and they lack the bully pulpit.

Republicans are the party in opposition. They should not be expected to guess at the president’s strategy. Rather, the president has an obligation to spell out his wartime strategy to the American people. He should do so without delay in his address to the nation. If he cannot articulate this, the resistance to his Ukraine-funding requests will likely continue to grow.

Matthew Kroenig is vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, a professor at Georgetown, and a former Pentagon senior policy advisor, 2017–21. Dan Negrea is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Center and a former State Department official, 2018–21.