Editor’s Note: Adam Kinzinger is a CNN senior political commentator and a former Republican congressman from Illinois. He served 10 years on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Kinzinger is also a lieutenant colonel and pilot in the Air National Guard.?Ben Hodges is a former commanding general of US Army Europe. He served for 38 years in the US Army.?The views expressed in this commentary are?their?own. Read?more opinion?at CNN.
There seems to be a doctrine within the National Security Council in the Biden administration: escalation aversion. These “escalationists” seem deeply worried that any increase in support for Ukraine could lead to World War III.
France and Germany on Tuesday took the important step of joining the UK and other countries in saying the weapons they supply Ukraine could be used in strikes on Russian soil. Predictably, Russian President Vladmir Putin responded that these moves could lead to “serious consequences,” particularly for “small and densely populated countries.” This threat has been made by Putin again and again, often referencing Russia’s nuclear weapons, as the West has upped it’s support for Ukraine. The US needs to stop taking it seriously.
Let’s revisit some history from the last couple of years.
Ukraine requested Javelins and Stingers before the full-scale war began when Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022. Initially, they didn’t receive the large quantities they wanted amid fears of escalation. Eventually, they received more, used them effectively, and then received even more. No nuclear war occurred.
After the battle of Kyiv was won, Ukraine requested MiG-29s, which Poland agreed to provide in exchange for Western fighters. The Biden administration blocked this initially, but later relented, and no nuclear war occurred.
Ukraine requested F-16 fighter jets to help protect its skies. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.
Ukraine requested Patriot missiles to defend against relentless Russian air attacks. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred. Many lives were saved.
Ukraine requested HIMARS rocket launchers, the advanced missile/artillery system, to attack Russian supply lines. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.
Ukraine requested Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles for trench warfare in the east. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.
Ukraine requested ATACMS missiles, with a range of about 190 miles, to attack Russian targets. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.
In almost every one of these cases, Russia threatened escalation, an attack on NATO or the use of nuclear weapons. Each time, the bluff was called, and Ukraine was able to better defend its territory. While Russian threats should not be taken lightly, history shows us that these threats are often hollow. During the Cold War, nuclear threats were not uncommon, but the US didn’t keep them from advancing its foreign policy interests.
Imagine if we had provided Ukraine with all of the above weapons from the start? After the 2022 counteroffensive, Russia was on the defensive, disorganized and demoralized and struggling to recruit more troops. Ukraine might have finished the fight using all of the above, or at least had a much more successful counteroffensive in 2023. The war might have ended.
There are those who say that the Biden administration’s careful calibration has allowed the US to give increasing amounts of firepower to Ukraine without triggering Russian tripwires. But this isn’t how war works. The idea that Russia would use nukes has been shown not to be a real concern. Just as we slowly rachet up pressure, so could Russia slowly increase its pain tolerance and have chosen to react at any point.
All of this is important to remember as Ukraine repeatedly requests permission to strike military targets inside Russia with American weapons. So far, they have been denied, but let’s make a prediction: They will eventually be granted this permission. So why wait? Why delay while Ukrainians continue to lose their lives?
We understood the prohibition on attacks on Russian soil when Ukraine was struggling to defend Kyiv. It didn’t make sense to waste efforts on “revenge strikes” when fighting to clear territory. However, once the war entered the attrition phase after Russian left Kyiv and the fighting became an artillery duel between the two wise in eastern Ukraine, it became utter nonsense to keep this prohibition alive.
Right now, Ukrainians have been forced to endure Russian air attacks from glide bombs. Despite knowing the origin point of these attacks, they have been unable to attack those sites.
Of course, escalation management is important, and support for Ukraine, or any ally, should not come with blinders. The US, in providing lethal aid, deserves a seat at the table and input on how the aid should be used. However, when faced with an existential crisis, much latitude should be given to Ukraine to determine how best to defend its land and save lives.
We have heard Ukrainian soldiers repeatedly tell stories of Russian columns attacking, being repelled, and retreating to safe Russian territory to regroup, have a hot meal, plan and attack again. In logical warfare, it is precisely at the moment of retreat and regroup that you would double down and strike harder, creating chaos, panic and crushing fighting strength and morale. Ukraine cannot win if Russians can attack civilian targets with impunity and call “time out” in their own territory.
Get our free weekly newsletter
- Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter.
- Join us on Twitter and Facebook
Ukraine fights primarily for its survival, but they also fight for the collective West and the post-World War II order. With such serious implications on the world stage, the Biden administration needs to articulate, or at least have a clear internal understanding of, what the US aims to achieve through its support. A clear strategic objective, which the US failed to establish in Vietnam and Afghanistan, can lead to victory. But does the US support a Ukrainian victory? If so, what does that look like, and what needs to happen to achieve these ends as quickly as possible? Or is it simply supporting a war of attrition until Russia comes to the table?
As any military expert or general (or sergeant, for that matter) will tell you, destroying the enemy is, of course, the most important element of victory, whether in direct combat or where they are grouping, planning or executing the war. The idea that, as of today, Russia can essentially consider its own territory a “safe haven” against US weaponry runs counter to the objective of a Ukrainian victory.
Ukraine has been prevented from attacking legitimate military targets because of a paralyzing fear of escalation, despite the law of armed conflict giving Ukraine the right to defend itself in such a way. The Biden administration deserves credit for its actions in Ukraine, especially given the alternative of former President Donald Trump’s threat to abandon the country. However, the fear of escalation, while noble, is actually making a victory for Ukraine?less likely.