A less generous view than Dr. Snyder.

You must read Timothy Snyder’s newest words on how the Biden admin is about to destroy Ukraine. That’s not Snyder’s view. It’s mine.

The Biden Administration's Failures in Supporting Ukraine: A Critical Analysis

The Biden administration’s approach to the Ukrainian conflict has been marked by several significant missteps that have hampered Ukraine’s ability to effectively resist Russian aggression. Despite the rhetoric of unwavering support, the reality on the ground reveals a series of failures that have undermined Ukraine's defense efforts and complicated the broader geopolitical landscape. These failures stem from a combination of delayed military aid, a misguided understanding of geopolitical realism, and a leadership approach that has struggled to meet the demands of the crisis.

***

1. Too Few Weapons, Too Late

One of the most glaring failures of the Biden administration has been the tardiness and insufficiency of military aid provided to Ukraine. The initial reluctance to supply Ukraine with advanced weaponry, such as long-range missile systems and modern air defense, has cost the Ukrainian military valuable time and opportunities. According to experts like Timothy Snyder, this delay squandered a critical opportunity for Ukraine to potentially win the war outright in November 2022, when Ukrainian forces retook Kherson city. At that time, before the construction of the Surovikin defensive lines by Russia, a more decisive and timely influx of military support could have allowed Ukraine to press its advantage and potentially force a Russian retreat.

***

2. Too Many Opinions from Too Few Warfighters

Another critical issue has been the administration's over-reliance on diplomatic and political advisors at the expense of military experts with firsthand warfighting experience. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, in particular, has played a central role in shaping U.S. policy toward Ukraine, often prioritizing caution and diplomatic considerations over military efficacy. This decision-making process, heavily influenced by individuals who lack a deep understanding of modern warfighting, has led to strategies that are often disconnected from the realities on the ground. Retired generals like Ben Hodges and Phillip Breedlove have pointed out that this cautious approach has undermined the effectiveness of U.S. support, leaving Ukraine under-resourced at critical moments.

***

3. Thinking Nukes = Geopolitical Realism

The administration’s approach to nuclear threats has been equally problematic. Biden and his advisors, including Sullivan, have seemingly equated geopolitical realism with an overly cautious stance on Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling. This has led to a restrained military strategy that prioritizes avoiding escalation over decisive action. However, retired military leaders like Hodges and Breedlove argue that Russia's use of a nuclear weapon would bring no strategic benefit to their war effort. Instead, they contend that such an act would isolate Russia further on the global stage and provoke a strong international response. This perspective highlights that geopolitical realism, when properly understood, actually curtails Putin's use of nuclear weapons rather than encouraging caution on the part of the West. It is only by choice that the Biden administration allows itself to be deterred, effectively enabling Russia’s continued aggression.

***

4. Underestimating Ukraine

Perhaps one of the most significant failures has been the consistent underestimation of Ukraine’s capabilities and resolve. Early in the conflict, the Biden administration seemed to doubt Ukraine’s ability to withstand the Russian invasion, leading to a reluctance to commit fully to their defense. This miscalculation not only slowed down the provision of aid but also affected the strategic planning of Western support, which often assumed a rapid Ukrainian collapse. Contrary to initial concerns, Ukraine has proven capable not only of managing corruption but also of efficiently handling the logistical challenges of modern warfare. Ukraine's surprising resilience and effective logistics have since proven these assumptions wrong, but the early misjudgments have had lasting consequences.

***

5. Ignoring Realism When Confronted with Putin and Nukes

In contrast to the administration’s cautious approach to nuclear threats, there has been a troubling lack of realism in understanding and countering Putin's broader geopolitical ambitions. The administration has repeatedly underestimated Putin’s willingness to escalate the conflict and challenge Western resolve. This has resulted in a reactive rather than proactive strategy, where the U.S. has often been caught off guard by Russian maneuvers, further complicating the situation in Ukraine. Geopolitical realism, properly understood, would recognize that Putin's nuclear threats are a form of psychological warfare intended to deter Western support for Ukraine. Instead, by allowing themselves to be deterred, the Biden administration has played into Putin’s hands, perpetuating a cycle of escalation and concession.

***

6. Confusing Help with Outcome

The Biden administration has also made the mistake of confusing the act of providing help with ensuring a successful outcome. The provision of military aid has been slow and piecemeal, failing to recognize that the speed and scale of support are crucial in determining the outcome of the conflict. This has led to a situation where Ukraine receives just enough support to continue fighting but not enough to decisively turn the tide against Russia. The administration’s incremental approach has prolonged the conflict, leading to greater loss of life and suffering.

***

7. Refusing/Inability to Lead from the Front

Finally, the leadership displayed by President Biden has been marked by a reluctance to lead from the front. Biden’s age and cautious demeanor have often been cited as factors that limit his ability to engage in the kind of dynamic, decisive leadership that the situation demands. In a conflict where leadership and resolve are paramount, the administration’s failure to project strength and decisiveness has weakened the West’s overall response and allowed Russia to exploit the perceived lack of unity and resolve.

In conclusion, the Biden administration’s handling of the Ukraine crisis has been fraught with significant failures that have hindered Ukraine's ability to defend itself and complicated the broader geopolitical landscape. Snyder is right to be worried about Trump. But he should also be worried about eight more years of “escalation management”.

The only difference is the pace of Ukraine’s demise.

In the beginning when the Biden Admin was showing its understanding of how the war in Ukraine was not a total lose I gave the admin a grade of “B-”. Today, YEARS LATER, I give them a “D+”.

Just above total failure.

They show no understanding of the subject matter. No ability to employ complex concepts. And, constantly turn in late assignments.

***

This analysis was written by Benjamin Cook. For more in-depth insights and analysis on global conflicts, AI in warfare, and geopolitical strategies, join my Substack newsletter. Subscribe here to stay updated with the latest posts and exclusive content.