BTN News: John J. Sullivan, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, has recently sparked a significant debate over America’s approach to arming Ukraine. In his new book, Midnight in Moscow: A Memoir from the Front Lines of Russia’s War Against the West, Sullivan reflects on the critical moments leading up to and following Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. He argues that the United States hesitated too long in providing essential military support to Kyiv, largely due to an overestimation of the risks associated with crossing the so-called “red lines” of Russian President Vladimir Putin. This cautious approach, Sullivan suggests, may have cost Ukraine valuable time and resources in its fight against Russian aggression.
As the largest military aid donor to Ukraine, the United States has supplied approximately $56 billion in assistance to the war-torn country. Yet, this significant contribution was, according to Sullivan, hampered by continuous delays fueled by fears of provoking a severe response from Moscow. Particularly concerning was Putin’s aggressive nuclear rhetoric, which led to a heightened concern about escalating tensions beyond the point of no return. Sullivan highlights that these fears often resulted in crucial military support being postponed, potentially hindering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself effectively.
“America has failed to provide Ukrainians with what they needed beyond their heroic resistance,” Sullivan remarked in an interview with Newsweek. He underscored that whether it was the delivery of M1A1 tanks, F-16 fighter jets, or advanced missile systems, the pattern was the same: delays, delays, and more delays. The much-anticipated arrival of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine only began this month, following President Joe Biden’s approval for U.S. allies to send the American-made aircraft. This development marks the latest in a series of American military provisions, which have ranged from Javelin and Stinger missiles to HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems), long-range ATACMS missiles, and even Patriot missile defense systems.
Despite initial fears, none of these weapon deliveries have triggered a severe response from Russia. Even Ukraine’s recent incursion into the Russian region of Kursk, an action that might have been perceived as crossing one of Putin’s “red lines,” did not provoke the anticipated retaliation. This has led to questions about whether the U.S. government’s initial caution was warranted or whether it unnecessarily delayed the assistance that could have been crucial in the early stages of the conflict.
Sullivan’s reflections raise important considerations for future U.S. foreign policy and military aid strategies. The former ambassador’s account suggests that while caution is necessary in international relations, it should not come at the expense of timely support for allies in dire need. As the war in Ukraine continues, the lessons from these delays will likely influence how the United States and its allies respond to similar conflicts in the future. The ongoing debate over the balance between caution and decisive action in providing military aid will remain a critical issue as the international community watches the situation in Ukraine unfold.
The strategic decisions made during the early days of the conflict, as outlined by Sullivan, highlight the complexities of international diplomacy in times of war. They also underscore the importance of not only assessing potential risks but also weighing them against the immediate needs of allies facing existential threats. As history continues to judge the actions—or inactions—of global powers during this critical period, Sullivan’s insights provide a valuable perspective on the challenges and dilemmas that define modern warfare and international relations.
