Kamala Harris must correct Washington’s Ukraine policy

By providing Ukraine with early military, political, and financial support, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration saved it from being overrun by Russia. Yet since November 2022, the conflict has been locked in a stalemate, which is not to Ukraine’s advantage. If elected, Kamala Harris should make it an explicit goal to turn today’s horrendous war of attrition into a Ukrainian victory. Ukraine’s surprising offensive in Russia’s Kursk Oblast may be the beginning of a more promising development.

Ukraine’s own goals are clear: to restore full territorial integrity; to allow all displaced Ukrainian citizens – including the thousands of children kidnapped by Russia – to return; and to receive full compensation for the damage Russia has caused. By contrast, the United States currently has no strategy to speak of. The Biden administration merely claims that it will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” whereas Harris’s Republican challenger, Donald Trump, promises to end the war in a day, implying complete capitulation to the Kremlin.

For Harris, the current impasse is an opportunity. Two-thirds of Americans are rooting for Ukraine’s victory, and she has already dealt extensively with Ukraine, having met President Volodymyr Zelensky six times and led the U.S. delegation to the Ukraine Peace Summit in Switzerland in June. As U.S. vice president, she has followed Biden’s lead; but as president, she could turn the war around and make Ukraine one of her big winning issues.

Doing so will require a comprehensive strategy backed by sufficient resources. The Biden administration’s policy (presumably the work of National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan) is to defend Ukraine without provoking Russian President Vladimir Putin. Owing to irrational fears about nuclear attacks or World War III, the White House has created imaginary Russian red lines, thus offering Russia a sanctuary from Ukrainian attacks with Western arms. But given that Putin would not survive a nuclear war, he is exceedingly unlikely to go down that path.

Another fundamental shortcoming of the Biden policy is the lack of any clear goal. The goal should be to provide Ukraine with enough support to defeat Russia. Harris should appoint a national security adviser who is whole-heartedly committed to that objective. The Ukrainians are bravely fighting on their own. They are not calling for foreign troops; but they do need potent arms, the right to use them to target Russian bases, and sufficient funding from the West.

Ukraine received about $100 billion in 2023 (half of it military assistance, and the rest budget support and humanitarian aid), and it is on track to receive around the same amount in 2024. While substantial, that is not enough to tip the balance. For an outright victory, Ukraine would probably need $150 billion per year, with a doubling of military support to $100 billion. That would equip it to win the war, which would then reduce future costs (not to mention Ukrainian suffering).

It is no secret where such funding can be found. The West has frozen $280 billion in Russian reserves, two-thirds of which are held in the private Euroclear system in Belgium. Moreover, the U,S. Congress has sensibly passed legislation authorizing the Department of the Treasury to seize frozen Russian assets, while demanding that the European Union do the same. But the EU has refused, owing mainly to opposition from France and Germany.

This European resistance makes no sense. With Russia violating international law on a daily basis, the Kremlin cannot credibly demand the protection of international law. Like the U.S., the EU needs to adopt legislation allowing for Russian funds to be seized and used to support Ukraine. Though only around $5 billion has been located in the U.S., that money can be seized and delivered to Ukraine immediately to set an example for the Europeans. True, in June, the U.S. persuaded other G7 members to lend Ukraine $50…