Besieged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a powerful plea to the US Congress by video on Wednesday, echoing former British prime pinister Winston Churchill’s wartime address to the same chamber and appealing to Americans to recall their own past traumas, from Pearl Harbor to September 11, 2001.
He challenged US President Joe Biden to show more leadership as Ukraine faces an existential fight against an enemy bent on its annihilation.
“You are the leader of the nation … I wish you to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace,” Zelenskyy told Biden, after showing a wrenching video that featured images of bloodied children and bodies thrown into ditches.
Zelenskyy received a standing ovation from a packed auditorium of US politicians, many of whom are also demanding that Biden do more. Many of those same individuals also voted to acquit former US president Donald Trump in his first impeachment hearing for short-changing Ukraine of that very same support.
Zelenskyy’s address followed similarly personal, well-tailored appeals to Britain and Canada, in which he invoked Churchill’s famous “We shall never surrender” speech and pleaded with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “imagine you and your children hearing all these severe explosions” if the Ottawa International Airport were bombed.
Zelenskyy’s eloquent pleas highlighted just how tight a geopolitical spot Biden is in right now, one that few if any US presidents have had to navigate.
On one hand, Biden faces a brutal aggressor across the Atlantic Ocean. Russian President Vladimir Putin has all but threatened to start a nuclear war if the US or NATO intervenes directly in Ukraine. On the other hand, Biden finds himself more pressed to help Ukraine in a war broadcast on social media, video and the nightly news, all headlined by the charismatic Zelenskyy, a former TV actor.
Nearly three weeks after Russia’s invasion, Biden has walked that line carefully and, many have said, skilfully, uniting Western allies in announcing unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia and military aid to Ukraine while also assiduously keeping US troops and planes out of the conflict so as not to risk Putin’s wrath. But as political pressure on Biden grows, the line has become fuzzier — and possibly more dangerous.
Further raising the stakes, the prime ministers of Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia — three NATO members — travelled to the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv and met with Zelenskyy, risking their own lives to show support for Ukraine. That suggested there could be some cracks within the alliance itself, although NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg reiterated Wednesday that there would not be any no-fly zone in Ukraine, as Biden has said.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the same day that Biden was flying to an “extraordinary” NATO summit on March 24 to discuss ongoing deterrence and defence efforts.
“It is fundamentally an unprecedented situation that Biden finds himself in,” said Richard Immerman, a historian and national security expert at Temple University. “Just as in Vietnam we talked about it being the first television war, we now have the first social media war.”
But at the same time, Immerman added, no president has had to figure nuclear Armageddon into his intervention decision-making — at least, not since then-US president Dwight D Eisenhower declined to oppose Moscow’s invasion of Hungary in 1956.
“The nuclear question was never in play in Korea or in Vietnam,” Immerman said.
Following the speech, Senator James Risch, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for Biden to “step up and lead”. In a statement, he said: “Let’s send them airplanes, let’s send them air defence systems, and let’s do it faster.”
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also demanded more action, saying: “We should heed President Zelenskyy’s call for additional defensive aid including anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft missiles.”
Zelenskyy called again for Biden to impose a no-fly zone — which could put US pilots in direct confrontation with Russian planes and air defence systems, and which Biden has refused to do.
But he acknowledged that might not happen. “If this is too much to ask, we offer an alternative,” Zelenskyy said. “You know what kind of defence systems we need.”
Biden is under pressure to deliver much more sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems, including former Soviet ones such as S-300s used by some NATO allies, that can reach higher than the Stingers and Javelins already in use. According to CNN, other systems that may already be on their way include Soviet-era SA-8, SA-10, SA-12, and SA-14 mobile air defence systems, which are capable of hitting cruise missiles.
Yet every additional weapons system that comes across the border from NATO countries — especially if they are Russian-made — risks the very sort of escalation Biden has been desperately seeking to avoid.
At her regular news briefing on Tuesday, Psaki was repeatedly challenged on whether Biden’s refusal to allow Russian MiG-29 jets from Poland to be sent to Ukraine by air was very different from what was being sent on the ground. She declined to elaborate on the distinction between them.
Biden spoke to the nation after Zelenskyy on Wednesday, and the administration announced US$800 million in new security assistance in addition to US$200 million announced earlier this week. He also said the US and NATO were working to help Ukraine acquire longer-range missile systems, without being specific, and that he was “committed to surging weapons and equipment” to Ukraine, including 800 anti-aircraft and 9,000 anti-armour systems. But Biden stayed firm on opposing a no-fly zone and the fighter jet transfer.
Psaki sought to stem the tide by noting that Biden was to sign an omnibus bill containing US$13.6 billion in aid and has approved four emergency security assistance packages to provide Ukraine with the types of weapons it is using so effectively to defend the country, such as anti-armour and air defence weapons.
Psaki also said the sanctions on Putin’s oligarch allies in Russia, including the seizure of their yachts abroad, were being stepped up.
Biden’s political quandary is made more pressing by the timid approach of his former boss, former US president Barack Obama, who when Biden was vice-president repeatedly declined to get tough with Putin after his annexation of Crimea in 2014.
The US implemented limited sanctions on Russia — including on its energy, defence and finance sectors — but played down the threat from Moscow.
But most of all, perhaps, Zelenskyy’s eloquence could change the calculus.
In his speech, Zelenskyy called not just for more defence equipment but for sanctions on every Russian politician and official who has not openly disavowed Putin’s invasion. He also implored his congressional audience to close US ports to all Russian goods and ensure that every US company in their districts leave the Russian market immediately. “It is flooded with our blood,” Zelenskyy said.
Biden’s best hope may lie in Ukraine’s mud and Russia’s ineptitude. With the massive invasion bogged down after three weeks of war, even as Russian units close on Kyiv and murder civilians in Mariupol, diplomatic efforts are mounting.
Zelenskyy did not say he wanted to join NATO or the European Union in his address to Congress, a key Russian demand for Moscow to call off its dogs of war.
Americans truly believe that they are the World’s Police. They are the World’s first and only option for Peace, whilst at the same time. they pick and choose what conflicts they enter, and often end up coming home with their tails between their legs
From Manifest Destiny to being the sole Exceptional, Indispensable nation is a small step, bloody footprints along the way.
And an estimated 12 million deaths since 1945 – would be considered a holocaust if anybody else did it.
This is true but is it a reason to endorse Putin’s actions in Ukraine, and if not, what do you see as the best outcome and how it might be achieved?
If you understood the phrase ‘begs the question‘ (NB not the usual common misunderstanding of the concept) you would not have written ‘…endorse Putin’s actions..’ – an a priori condition to the 2 queries in the final phrase.
Yeah, but look at the profits their weapons manufacturers have made along the way. Forever war is a nice little earner for them, and the US economy generally.
And that, as they say in adveryising, is ‘the money shot’. War. A nice little earner for Big Everything.
California has the 5th largest GDP in the world because of it’s a weapons manufacturer – specifically aerospace but lotsa other lethal toys – and has an illegal/stoop labour agricultural sector in a desert by stealing water from other states and the Future, if any.
…the curse of W/P – “…because
ofit’s a weapons manufacturer…” and hurrying to be outside in the rare sunshine.‘ . . . no president has had to figure nuclear Armageddon into his intervention decision-making — at least, not since then-US president Dwight D Eisenhower declined to oppose Moscow’s invasion of Hungary in 1956’. Really? What about the ‘Cuban’ missile crisis in 1962 when the world came perilously close to WWIII because of US refusal to allow a sovereign nation to host hostile missiles so close to US shores? Sound familiar? Fortunately Khrushchev back then had the sense to back off, whereas Biden has kept pushing the NATO-into-Ukraine agenda.
Aren’t the atomic bombs smaller etc etc.
And wars are so good for politics – local scandals, important issues not front page any more.
Just war news.
I’ve noticed the words in all media – Putin’s war, rather than Russia.
Zelenski wants no fly? Sure to lead to a full scale war.
Austerity measures world wide to pay for the arms etc.
It’s a mad mad world.
When Krushchev made his “We will bury you” he meant by the sheer success of kommunism, as measured in number of tractors, and buxom maidens to drive them, produced.
However when he pointed out during one of the routine Berlin blockade crises that the Soviets could overwhelm US troops in any conventional engagement, Eisenhower replied that his response would be conventional.
Neither then USSR, nor the current Russia, has ever threatened a nuclear first strike.
Unlike the Hegemon which has done so on numerous, well documented occassions, Cuba just being the most well known.
…aarghh, “…Eisenhower replied that his response would NOT be conventional“.
The Ukraine asked to join NATO. Should they not have the right to make this choice? They also removed their nuclear weapons which should have signaled that they did not want to engage in a war with Russia imo.
Kennedy wrote “The 1930’s taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged ultimately leads to war. . . . let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can see precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. . . . The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are–but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high–and Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.” https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-during-the-cuban-missile-crisis Khrushchev backed off because Kennedy didn’t.
I regard have nukes, neuter NATO as the worst policy decision of my lifetime – and I.m old!. We are complicit in the humanitarian disaster and create incentive for nuclear proliferation.
Contrary to the well propagated myth, Krushchev made his point and Kennedy backed down.
Check out what Kennedy was required to do re Jupiter missiles along the northern coasts of Turkey.
Thanks Epimenides. Did some reading and the US did provoke Krushchev into placing the missiles in Cuba and achieved removal of the American ones in Turkey. It does put a very different light on it!!
You are welcome.
Please read as much history as you can from books.
Soon, before we reach 451 and get all our emo & news from the White Clown.
I do read books, just different ones and prob should have left out the Kennedy reference as it was an afterthought rather than a contributor to my view that have nukes neuter NATO is a terrible policy. The basis of my view is a disturbing large and depressing body of evidence that people abuse power when and because they can.
Hopefully, as a book reader, you’ll be familiar with Acton’s axiom about power tending (often omitted in careless quotes) to corrupt (those who wield it).
“aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged ultimately leads to war” – agree and the West’s aggressive conduct has been most eggregious ranging from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan to its continual backing of Taiwan, Interference in Hong Kong, backing Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war along with multiple US backed insurgencies around the world and now poor old Ukraine is the meat in the sandwich. Having said that, Ukraine is far from innocent when it comes to the Donbas regions.
Whether you agree with these countries or not, they have the right to choose as well and without interference and invasion by the United Snakes and its Allies. What you describe is typical Western arrogance and “superiority”.
In the case of the Ukraine, the West should have followed their usual modus operandi (when it’s the West doing the invading) and support Ukraine the way they support Non-Western countries ie. No support at all.
BTW. Kennedy reached a deal with Khruschev rather than Khruschev backing off. No missiles in Cuba in return for no US or NATO missiles in Turkey.
Do you see this situation in Ukraine as the same as Vietnam etc?
To some degree yes but on a humanitarian crisis basis, Ukraine is small beer in comparison with Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc. The West egged Ukraine on, sold them a ton of weapons (and still selling them) and the latter will extend this war and cause even more suffering.
By “extend the war and cause more suffering” are you saying you think Ukraine should surrender to Putin? If we strip it back it seems to come down to should or shouldn’t Putin withdraw from Ukraine and with or without Ukraine ceding eastern areas.
The premise that defending Ukraine is going to war with Russia is wrong imo. This is Putin’s perspective over which we have no control. He has said providing weapons is akin to being at war with Russia and could equally call failure to declare Crimea/Donbas/all of Ukraine as Russian territory as being at war with Russia as Putin is Putin and acts with respect to what he wants.