Since Abraham Lincoln observed Civil War battles in Northern Virginia, no US President has ventured into active war zones not under American control.
See you this week.
The world watched with great astonishment when Joe Biden secretly traveled to the besieged Ukrainian capital, determined to demonstrate American support and boost morale for war-weary Ukrainian defenders.
In Kiev, Biden appeared in public places, apparently unfazed by sirens warning of air strikes.
But the trip also came as a direct challenge from Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, whose closest advisers were reportedly furious with Biden.
Biden: “Russia’s goal was to wipe Ukraine off the map. Putin’s war of conquest fails. Russia’s military has lost half of its once occupied territory. Young, talented Russians are fleeing by the tens of thousands because they don’t want to go back to their homeland.”
However, Biden’s trip to Ukraine and then Poland was part of sharply contrasting interpretations.
While the US President gave Putin sole responsibility for the war, Putin retorted that Russia invaded Ukraine in self-defense.
In his State of the Union address, the Kremlin chief reiterated that Kiev and its western allies were to blame for the conflict: “We’re not fighting the Ukrainian people, I’ve said that many times. The Ukrainian people have become hostage to the Kiev regime and its Western overlords, who control this country politically, militarily and economically.”
Putin left no doubt that the war would not end any time soon.
Instead, he vowed to continue procuring modern equipment for Russia’s military while continuing the country’s nuclear buildup and breaking away from the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty with US states.
Are these actions of a confident statesman? Maybe not. Too much has happened on the battlefield, seriously challenging Moscow’s ability to wage a 21st-century war.
Also an interview with Dara Massicot, senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation in Washington and author of the essay “What Russia is doing wrong” in the March issue of Foreign Affairs.
Euronews: At the start of the war a year ago, many experts predicted a Russian campaign in Ukraine that would be over in weeks rather than months. Did you also belong to this group of experts?
Massicot: I didn’t think about it in terms of time frame, but I certainly suspected that the Russians would lead their invasion with a series of devastating air and missile attacks, which has been confirmed. But seeing where they are 12 months later came as a surprise to many experts, I think. And there are many reasons for that. Many only became known after the beginning of the war. Some, however, has to do with problems within the Russian military itself.
Euronews: Let me follow up on that. You write in your essay that even before the war, the Russian army had structural weaknesses that limited its ability to wage a 21st-century war. What are these problems and why are they not doing anything about them?
Massicot: Well, 15 years ago the Russian military started a reform program and downsized its army to get away from the Soviet model. The reason was the thinking at the time that one no longer had to wage a large-scale, lengthy land war. A land war like the one we see now in Ukraine. So many military units were disbanded. There were also recruitment problems. In addition, no attention was paid to their ability to mobilize. And it was really up to Defense Minister Shoigu and Chief of Staff Gerasimov to report these problems to the Kremlin before the war. And it seems they didn’t.
Euronews: In the past, Russia has shown time and again that it is willing to incur enormous losses on the battlefield in order to achieve its goals. Do you see such a strategy – if you can call it that – at work in Ukraine?
Massicot: They have indeed shifted to that. A lot of what we’re seeing in this new offense is crude, maybe rudimentary is the right word. It’s waves of soldiers, some armored attacks, artillery attacks, 24 hours a day. It is very costly for the Russians, both in terms of their soldiers’ lives and the equipment they lose. But it also puts a strain on the Ukrainian defenders.
Euronews: We talked a lot about the power of symbolism this week when President Biden visited Kyiv. How important was Biden’s trip to country morale?
Massicot: I think it came at just the right time, on the first anniversary of the invasion. Many Ukrainians have suffered many traumas, within the military or among the civilian population. So having President Biden there to physically stand next to President Zelenskyy is a great measure of support. Not just metaphorically. It’s not just about providing arms, it’s about demonstrating the trust and support that the US has in the Ukrainian people.