By Martin Schram
The headline on the New York Times' dead-tree edition's front page reported this breaking news on April 20: "West Rushes to Give Ukraine Heavier Weapons."
And the lede packed the power and pop of a starter's gun: "The race is on."
But, of course, everyone who read that also knew that April 20 ― the day America's big weapons rush became big news ― was Day 56 of Russia's war in Ukraine. Fifty-six days into the war, the breaking news was that the United States and its NATO allies were finally sending Ukraine "bigger and more advanced longer-range weapons like howitzers, antiaircraft systems, anti-ship missiles, armed drones, armored trucks, personnel carriers and even tanks."
In other words: America and NATO were now sending all the weapons Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had been saying all along that his country desperately needed. Except the military jets, which still are not coming.
And that meant doing even more. Two days earlier, Reuters had reported: "The United States military expects to start training Ukrainians on using howitzer artillery in coming days, a senior U.S. defense official said on Monday … The United States is planning on teaching Ukrainian trainers on how to use some of the new batch of weapons such as howitzers and radars and then for the trainers to instruct their colleagues inside Ukraine."
So the real NEWSBREAK on Day 56 may have been that America was just getting around to training Ukraine's troop trainers, who will finally train their troops, on how to use all the big guns and vital radar systems. Then hopefully Ukraine's valiant fighters will be able to finally locate and knock out some of Russia's weapon launchers. And hopefully knock out many of Russia's rockets and projectiles that are demolishing cities and slaughtering innocent women, children and elderly.
Of course, the United States could have begun arming Ukraine with heavier weapons much earlier. But two months ago, when Vladimir Putin's military was massed at Ukraine's north, east and southern borders (and Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov were calling the West's warnings of an invasion "hysterical"), U.S. military and intelligence experts thought Russia's military could quickly defeat the out-manned, out-armed Ukrainians. They didn't want to see all the powerful weapons they gave Ukraine end up in Russia's arsenals.
Also: U.S. and European officials worried that supplying Ukraine with heavier weapons, could provide Putin with provocation to use tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons.
President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, America's top generals and intelligence officials were painfully aware of the last time they had placed too much faith in a smaller ally's military. And when Afghanistan's corrupt and only semi-capable military collapsed (see also: quit), their military intelligence failure created a departure debacle.
Austin later conceded he never even considered the possibility of that worst-case scenario. It was a misjudgment seen 'round the world. Perhaps it contributed to an excessive caution as the West did not act boldly enough, early enough, to give Ukraine maximum help as we all watched Putin mount Europe's most abominable and cowardly mass slaughter since Adolf Hitler. Faced with that moral imperative, did we do enough, early enough?
To answer that, I reached for a telephone on midday Wednesday, to begin seeking the insights of a compendium of America's top ex-officials of national security and politics. Then I glanced at my TV screen ― and there he was! The compendium I was about to phone was talking on MSNBC.
Leon Panetta, a friend from journalistic yesteryears ― who served in almost every job (except POTUS) that is now involved in our Ukraine decision-making ― was being interviewed about today's Ukraine policy decisions.
Andrea Mitchell was asking the ex-defense secretary, ex-CIA director, ex-White House chief of staff, ex-Office of Management and Budget director, ex-House Budget Committee chair and ex-Nixon administration Republican (yes, really) if the U.S. policy-making on Ukraine reflects sufficient urgency. And Panetta, being all the above, answered with decades of been-there authority: "This is not only a critical time in the war, it is a decisive moment. This will determine whether the Russians are stopped. … We have got to move very, very fast to avoid a defeat. … You cannot allow an aggressor to continue doing what Putin is doing. … We have to stop them in the Donbas region."
Is there a risk that Putin might use America's/NATO's weapons-providing and troop-training of Ukrainians as provocation to attack NATO nations or use nuclear weapons?
"War carries risks," Panetta answered." … This is a pivotal moment ― for the United States and for our allies.
"Almost our whole hope for the future in terms of foreign policy and the fate of democracies in the world is riding with the Ukrainians."
Martin Schram (martin.schram@gmail.com), an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, is a veteran Washington journalist, author and TV documentary executive.
 |
And the lede packed the power and pop of a starter's gun: "The race is on."
But, of course, everyone who read that also knew that April 20 ― the day America's big weapons rush became big news ― was Day 56 of Russia's war in Ukraine. Fifty-six days into the war, the breaking news was that the United States and its NATO allies were finally sending Ukraine "bigger and more advanced longer-range weapons like howitzers, antiaircraft systems, anti-ship missiles, armed drones, armored trucks, personnel carriers and even tanks."
In other words: America and NATO were now sending all the weapons Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had been saying all along that his country desperately needed. Except the military jets, which still are not coming.
And that meant doing even more. Two days earlier, Reuters had reported: "The United States military expects to start training Ukrainians on using howitzer artillery in coming days, a senior U.S. defense official said on Monday … The United States is planning on teaching Ukrainian trainers on how to use some of the new batch of weapons such as howitzers and radars and then for the trainers to instruct their colleagues inside Ukraine."
So the real NEWSBREAK on Day 56 may have been that America was just getting around to training Ukraine's troop trainers, who will finally train their troops, on how to use all the big guns and vital radar systems. Then hopefully Ukraine's valiant fighters will be able to finally locate and knock out some of Russia's weapon launchers. And hopefully knock out many of Russia's rockets and projectiles that are demolishing cities and slaughtering innocent women, children and elderly.
Of course, the United States could have begun arming Ukraine with heavier weapons much earlier. But two months ago, when Vladimir Putin's military was massed at Ukraine's north, east and southern borders (and Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov were calling the West's warnings of an invasion "hysterical"), U.S. military and intelligence experts thought Russia's military could quickly defeat the out-manned, out-armed Ukrainians. They didn't want to see all the powerful weapons they gave Ukraine end up in Russia's arsenals.
Also: U.S. and European officials worried that supplying Ukraine with heavier weapons, could provide Putin with provocation to use tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons.
President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, America's top generals and intelligence officials were painfully aware of the last time they had placed too much faith in a smaller ally's military. And when Afghanistan's corrupt and only semi-capable military collapsed (see also: quit), their military intelligence failure created a departure debacle.
Austin later conceded he never even considered the possibility of that worst-case scenario. It was a misjudgment seen 'round the world. Perhaps it contributed to an excessive caution as the West did not act boldly enough, early enough, to give Ukraine maximum help as we all watched Putin mount Europe's most abominable and cowardly mass slaughter since Adolf Hitler. Faced with that moral imperative, did we do enough, early enough?
To answer that, I reached for a telephone on midday Wednesday, to begin seeking the insights of a compendium of America's top ex-officials of national security and politics. Then I glanced at my TV screen ― and there he was! The compendium I was about to phone was talking on MSNBC.
Leon Panetta, a friend from journalistic yesteryears ― who served in almost every job (except POTUS) that is now involved in our Ukraine decision-making ― was being interviewed about today's Ukraine policy decisions.
Andrea Mitchell was asking the ex-defense secretary, ex-CIA director, ex-White House chief of staff, ex-Office of Management and Budget director, ex-House Budget Committee chair and ex-Nixon administration Republican (yes, really) if the U.S. policy-making on Ukraine reflects sufficient urgency. And Panetta, being all the above, answered with decades of been-there authority: "This is not only a critical time in the war, it is a decisive moment. This will determine whether the Russians are stopped. … We have got to move very, very fast to avoid a defeat. … You cannot allow an aggressor to continue doing what Putin is doing. … We have to stop them in the Donbas region."
Is there a risk that Putin might use America's/NATO's weapons-providing and troop-training of Ukrainians as provocation to attack NATO nations or use nuclear weapons?
"War carries risks," Panetta answered." … This is a pivotal moment ― for the United States and for our allies.
"Almost our whole hope for the future in terms of foreign policy and the fate of democracies in the world is riding with the Ukrainians."
Martin Schram (martin.schram@gmail.com), an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, is a veteran Washington journalist, author and TV documentary executive.
