Is winning not an option in Ukraine?

President Biden made a daring trip to war-torn Kyiv on Monday to reaffirm in person his administration’s commitment to Ukraine’s ongoing defensive struggle against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation.” While in Kyiv, Biden met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Mariinskyi Palace and, against the backdrop of air raid sirens, strolled past St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery located in Mikhailovskaya Square on the banks of the Dnieper River. 

Biden’s visit electrified Ukraine and the upsurge in excitement in Kyiv was as palpable as it was palliative. As Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense noted, Biden’s presence sent a direct message to Putin that “tyranny will not defeat the free world.” One day later, on Tuesday, Biden delivered an eloquent speech in defense of freedom and liberty assured an ebullient Polish crowd outside the Royal Castle in Warsaw that the United States stands on the side of freedom and that “Putin’s craven lust for land and power will fail.”

Yet, Biden’s speech in Warsaw, failed to match the same clarity of purpose and end-states achieved by John F. Kennedy in his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963 and Ronald Reagan’s demand to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 that he “tear down this wall.” Instead, Biden continues to characterize Ukraine’s war against Russia as a defensive struggle, while failing to define what is needed to bring about victory. 

Merely surviving is not victory. That is a forever war. It is, to paraphrase an Elton John song, almost as if “winning seems to be the hardest word” for the Biden administration to say, let alone to define for itself, NATO and Ukraine.

Biden’s inability, or unwillingness, to say “win the war” creates an opening for Putin and allows fissures in NATO to widen. Putin’s speech earlier on Tuesday in Gostiny Dvor, Moscow, made it clear that he fully understands the Biden administration, wittingly or not, is giving him a lifeline to regroup from Russia’s staggering military losses and casualties in Ukraine.

At its core — apart from the calculated nuclear saber-rattling designed to unsettle the West by suspending Russia’s participation in the New START treaty with the U.S. — Putin’s speech signaled more of the same in Ukraine. Putin did not suggest any immediate escalation, nor did he offer any conciliatory language hinting that he is willing to negotiate a ceasefire, let alone a comprehensive peace agreement.

Putin’s speech was that of a technocrat. It was far more focused on domestic matters than it was on Russia’s deteriorating international position. He brushed off Western economic sanctions and argued the Motherland’s economy is, in many ways, stronger than ever. To the extent that his nearly two-hour speech touched on Ukraine, it was simply to regurgitate past claims. In his mind, NATO caused the war. Ukraine was about to invade Russia. Europe, suddenly, was full of Nazis again — and on and on.

Significantly, Putin’s “special military operation” remained referred to as just that. Like Biden’s inability to utter the word “win,” Putin seems unwilling to utter the word “war.” This, despite his raising the alarm that the “Western elite” are out to effect “Russia’s strategic defeat,” and, therefore, “this [now] represents an existential threat to our country.”

All of this, on one level, is “getting more and more absurd,” as Elton sang. Biden is at war but does not speak of winning. Putin is arguing that Russia is at existential risk yet refuses to characterize his invasion as a war.

Absurd? Yes, but both sides likely have their reasons.

The Biden administration’s unwillingness to use the word “win” is likely because the national security team fears what a Russian loss would mean, if Putin himself were to fall as a direct result and civil war were to ensue. For now, the Kremlin shows no outward signs of using its nuclear arsenal, despite daily fantasies expressed by Moscow’s state-controlled media talking heads. 

Putin’s calculus, on the other hand, is likely more nefarious and targeted in nature. Not only does his non-use of the word “war” buy him more time domestically, but it also affords him the opportunity to keep fostering divide among NATO countries. That divide is already there — and it is deepening.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán continues to obstruct European Union aid for Ukraine, while blasting his fellow EU member-states for “prolonging Russia’s war in Ukraine” and claiming, “This is [Kyiv’s] war, not ours.” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan continues to make his own power plays, having first blackmailed Finland and Sweden over admission to NATO. Now, Erdoğan is entertaining Putin’s overtures to make Turkey a global gas hub for a future Russian natural gas pipeline to be built across the Black Sea. Conceivably, if Ukraine does not win, Turkey would win if that gas were shipped to its export facilities versus across Ukrainian territory.

Even Croatia, the small Mediterranean NATO member, objects to the West continuing to arm Ukraine. These are cracks Putin hopes to foster while playing “Old NATO” — France, Germany and the United Kingdom — against “New NATO” — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. Old NATO, like the U.S. presently, seems to prefer a negotiated settlement wherein Putin survives. New NATO wants him and Putinism gone forever; they remember all too well what it is like to live under Russian oppression.

Biden’s refusal to embrace the word “win” is not without risk. Retired U.S. Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey warned recently that Ukraine “lacks the armor and deep strike weapons to survive” in the long run. Thus, while the Biden administration prevaricates over winning in Ukraine, there is a very real possibility Ukraine could still lose.

The key to winning the war against Russia is likely Crimea. It is, as retired Army Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges proclaimed to the Kyiv Post, “decisive territory.” The key to winning Crimea is twofold. Biden must acknowledge and state that “winning” is now the goal — and then equip Ukraine with long-range precision strike weapons such as ATACMS, F-16 fighter bombers, and an adequate number of main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams so that Ukraine can launch a combined arms offensive to secure Crimea. Given Putin’s speech, a negotiated end — as State Department spokesman Ned Price suggested to CNN — is a pipedream. Russia will accept nothing less than total capitulation to Moscow. 

If winning in Crimea is not an option, then Ukraine risks losing this war in the Donbas. Enough of the absurd. It is time to win.

Mark Toth is a retired economist and entrepreneur who has worked in banking, insurance, publishing, and global commerce. He is a former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis, and has lived in U.S. diplomatic and military communities around the world, including London, Tel Aviv, Augsburg, and Nagoya. Follow him on Twitter @MCTothSTL. 

Jonathan Sweet, a retired Army colonel, served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. His background includes tours of duty with the 101st Airborne Division and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012-14, working with NATO partners in the Black Sea and Baltics. Follow him on Twitter @JESweet2022.