How successive U.S. administrations resisted arming Ukraine

Earlier this week, the United States authorizedup to $350 million US for immediate support to Ukraine's defence, which, according to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, would bring thetotal U.S. security assistance committed over the past year to more than $1 billion.

Yet since the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia,theObama, Trump and Biden administrationshave all, to some degree, delayed or balked atsendinglethal aid to Ukraine raising questions aboutwhether a better armed Ukraine couldhave provided a deterrent to a Russian invasion.

"We don't know if that would have deterred" Russian President VladimirPutin from invading Ukraine on Feb. 24. "I think Putin felt that no matter how well armed Ukraine was, that he would be able to roll over Ukraine," said Jim Townsend, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defencefor European and NATO policy.

"We should have, though, we should have provided lethal weapons. And earlier.I think [Ukraine]would have had a better chance of surviving than they are now, right? And then the odds would have been higher that they could have been deterred."

Simon Miles,an assistant professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.,and an expert onRussia, agreed that the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations should have done more to build up Ukraine's defensive capabilities.

"That being said, it is not clear to me that that would have dissuaded what is happening right now."

In 2014, during Ukraine's battle to regain control of the Crimean Peninsula seizedby Russia, then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenkopleaded with Washington for more lethal military assistance, includingJavelin anti-tank missiles.

However, despite bipartisan support from U.S. lawmakers to send lethal aid, the Obama administration would only commit to non-lethal support, which included equipment such asbody armour, night gogglesand helmets.

Obama resisted sending lethal support

Then-president Barack Obama, while providing millions of dollars in aid, resisted sending lethal support, fearing that such a military buildup might provoke Putin to strike.

A 2015 joint report by the Brooking Institution, the Atlantic Council and the Chicago Council on Global Affairsurged the Westto bolster deterrence in Ukraine "by raising the risks and costs to Russia of any renewed major offensive."

That would require providing direct military assistanceso that Ukraine is better able to defend itself, the report stated. While itcalled onNATO members to be part of that strategy, it also said the U.S. governmentneeded to provideUkraine with $3billion in military assistance over the next three years.

"Obviously it's difficult to give them enough arms right now, but Ithink it would have made a difference," said Gen. Charles Wald, a former deputy commander of the United States European Commandand one of the authors of the report.

"And who knows, it might have even deterred Putin.... So I think there was a mistake made by not increasing the defensive armament capability and other things for the Ukrainians at that time."

Townsend, who's now a senioradviser with a number of security think-tanks, said he believes there was too much concern at the time about provoking Putinand that the Russian president may have viewed that as a sign of weakness.

Miles agreed that there certainly was a risk that a military buildup could prompt a response from Putin.

"You also have the risk that a very vulnerable Ukraine with a very powerful neighbourwith a track record of preying on its neighboursIs very susceptible to threats and coercion and violence from that neighbour," he said. "Sothe risk cuts both ways."

Yet in 2018, with Donald Trump as president, the U.S. reversed courseand agreed to provide Ukraine with $47 million worthof lethal weapons, which included210 Javelin anti-tankmissiles and 37 launchers.

According toCatherine Croft, who served as Ukraine director at the U.S. National Security Council, Trump had viewed Ukraine as a corrupt country and believed it should pay for the weapons itself, Foreign Policy magazine reported in 2019.

As well, a condition was placed onthe sale of the Javelin anti-tank missiles:They could only be stored in western Ukraine, away from the conflict, to be used as a deterrent.

Trump orders freeze

Then, in 2019, Trumpordered a freeze on a $400-millionpackage of military assistance to Ukraine that had been approved by Congress. The freezecame days before Trump'sphonecall withUkraine President Volodymyr Zelensky,where he pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate Joe Biden, a presidential front-runner at the time, and hisson Hunter Biden. It was this request that ledto Trump's first impeachment.

The aid, though, was released on Sept. 11, only after a whistleblower's complaint about Trump's pressure on Ukraine had surfaced and a few days after Democrats in Congress opened the investigation.

As for the current Biden administration, it, too, has been subject to bipartisan criticism for dragging its heels on military aidto Ukraine. In early December, 22 House lawmakers wrote a bipartisan letter to Biden, urging him to immediately provide the military aid requested by Ukraine including Stinger andJavelin missiles, drones,electronic jamming gear, radars, ammunitionand medical supplies.

In a recent article inThe Atlantic, Alexander Vindman, the formerdirector for European Affairs for the U.S. National Security council, criticized the administration for refusing to provide advanced weapon systems to Ukraine, such as Patriot anti-aircraft missiles, because it had determined that Ukraine's armed forces were not sophisticated enough to handle them.

"Although Ukraine would have struggled to realize the full potential of these systems, they could nonetheless have affected Russia's calculus for military operations," Vindman wrote.

'A serious problem'

However, MariyaOmelicheva, a professor of national security strategy at the Washington-based National War College, noted that Ukraine's ability to "absorb" such systems "was a serious problem."

She said very expensive equipment has been supplied that isjust standing idle because there aren't enough military personnel who are trained to operate it.

But maintaining theequipment, being able to order the proper parts anduse the parts for repairs arealso required, Omelicheva said, adding thatthe whole logistical supply chain procurement was nonexistent in Ukraine and had to essentially be built from scratch.

"So it's not just simply training the military in using [it]... but, you know, also be able to maintain and repair," she said.

Omelicheva said while it was possible that the delivery of more lethal aid to Ukraine could have delayed the invasion orraised the cost of an invasion, it could still havefailed to deter Russia with Putin more driven now by ideology and the belief that Ukraine is not a nation and that Russia's destiny is tied into the unity ofUkraine.

"When ideology becomes the driving force andan authoritarian leader is kind of cornered ... short of anuclear deterrent,I don't think anything would have deterred Russia from invading Ukraine," she said.