As the West and NATO risk escalation with Russia by continuously crossing Moscow's red lines by providing battle tanks and possibly F-16s in the future to Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has consistently pushed for more support from his Western allies and demanded NATO membership to the point of threatening to not attend NATO's upcoming Vilnius summit in July unless Ukraine is given a 'signal' toward membership in the alliance.
Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and others have repeatedly confirmed that while Kyiv could be given full NATO membership after the war, Ukraine will not be admitted while it is engaged in war with Russia. Despite full membership not being on the table due to the war, NATO is currently offering Zelensky certain security agreements. Those agreements, however, are likely to see the U.S. pulled into a massive, long-term commitment between Kyiv and Washington, ZeroHedge has reported.
As NATO continues to look for security agreements to assist Ukraine in the near future, the Biden administration has begun considering giving Kyiv "Israel status" which would require a commitment from Washington to provide permanent and rotational weapons shipments along with foreign aid to Ukraine - much as it has been doing for Israel. It should be noted, that much of the foreign aid that has already been provided to Ukraine has been abused by corrupt Ukrainian officials who have taken some of the aid for themselves to purchase expensive real estate in Kyiv and luxury vehicles.
Meanwhile, entrepreneur David Sachs, has posed the question, "Is Ukraine about to become a forever war?" Regarding the possibility of the country being given "Israel status," Sachs said,
This consists of long-term security guarantees (which run for ten-year intervals in Israel's case) including weapos, ammunition, and money "not subject to the fate of the current counteroffensive or the electoral calendar."
In other words, America won't reassess support even if the counteroffensive fails. Indeed, support won't cease even if voters want to make a change in the next election. Some observers may see here a classic bait and switch.
Entering into an agreement with Ukraine similar to the one the U.S. maintains with Tel Aviv would most likely only further heighten Washington's involvement on behalf of the losing side in a long-term conflict.
Sachs is quick to note that the Biden administration drew broad public support for its policy of supporting Ukraine as long as Kyiv was perceived to be "winning." However, as the war drags on and Ukraine continues to suffer defeats and losses, public support, and that of some allies, have started to dwindle.
"Last year, after Ukraine retook land around Kharkiv and Kherson, the American people were assured that the Ukrainians would complete the job in the spring and summer of 2023," Sachs explains.
"This new Ukrainian counteroffensive would roll back Russian territorial gains, perhaps even threaten the Russian hold on Crimea, and thereby drive Moscow to the negotiating table and end the war. Many Americans supported the $100+ billion in appropriations for Ukraine on this basis," Sachs added.
"The implicit promise was that this was a one-time expense, not the baseline for an annual appropriation in a new Forever War," he concluded.
Sachs is also quick to note that the Biden administration, which recently ended a 20-year war in Afghanistan, has already led the country into what could easily become another decades-long conflict.
"Now a difficult start to the counteroffensive couple with a proposed multi-year deal at Vilnius makes clear that this was a lie or a pipe dream. But isn't this what always happens? Administrations ease us into war with promises of quick and easy victory, and then once involved, tell us we can't back out no matter the cost because American credibility is at stake. It's Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq all over again, except this time with a nuclear-armed adversary creating the heightened risk that the war could escalate into WWIII at any point," Sachs concluded.
Regrettably, Israel and Ukraine are not the only long-term commitments the U.S. is engaged in, with a seemingly endless occupation of northeast Syria, which appears to have no clear strategic goals, mission, or other valid objectives to justify the ongoing U.S. presence in the country. One must wonder if Syria is a precursor to what U.S.-Ukrainian relations could become in a decade.