Welcome to POLITICO’s West Wing Playbook, your guide to the people and power centers in the Biden administration and Harris campaign. Send tips | Subscribe here | Email Eli | Email Lauren Beyond its defense of its own borders, Ukraine’s fight against Russia is critical to European security, the democratic world order and President JOE BIDEN’s legacy. But with less than six weeks left in the U.S. election — one likely to have a greater impact on Ukraine’s future than any pending decision by Biden about weapons restrictions — it was Vice President KAMALA HARRIS taking center stage on Thursday when Ukrainian President VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY visited the White House. Zelenskyy met first with Biden in the Oval Office. It’s still Biden, vowing that America’s commitment to the war would continue through the difficult winter months ahead and into the future, who will dictate U.S. policy until his term ends in January. But it was Harris holding a more formal press availability ahead of her own, separate meeting with Zelenskyy in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building — and arguing forcefully for continued U.S. support for Ukraine — that doubled as a rejoinder to her Republican opponent, DONALD TRUMP. Leveraging the trappings of her office, Harris referenced her prior meetings with Zelenskyy — Thursday’s was her seventh — and declared her own “unwavering” support for Ukraine’s cause. She also tied Ukraine’s fight for freedom to America’s founding ideal and the central theme of her campaign. “Ukraine’s fight matters to the people of America,” Harris said. “The Ukrainian people are bravely defending their homes and their homeland, their freedom and their democracy against a brutal dictator. And the American people know well the meaning of freedom, of independence and the importance of rule of law.” Although her remarks echoed those Biden has made many times before, Harris taking the lead offered a glimpse of her in the commander-in-chief role and allowed her the opportunity to respond to her opponent, whom she didn’t explicitly name. “Isolation is not insulation,” she said, asserting that America supports Ukraine’s defense “not out of charity but because it is in our strategic interest.” Just one day earlier, Trump, who's been increasingly critical of U.S. defense aid to Ukraine since the war began, described the country in bleak terms during a rally in North Carolina. He even suggested that Zelenskyy should have caved to Putin early on so the bloodshed and destruction could have been avoided. "Any deal — the worst deal — would’ve been better than what we have now," Trump said. "If they made a bad deal it would’ve been much better. They would’ve given up a little bit, and everybody would be living, and every building would be built and every tower would be aging for another 2,000 years.” “What deal can we make? It’s demolished,” he added. “The people are dead. The country is in rubble.” Harris, with Zelenskyy at her side, spoke plainly about there being “some in my country who would force Ukraine to give up large swaths of land,” characterizing her opponent’s approach to Ukraine as appeasement of Russia. “These proposals are the same as those of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” she went on. “They are not proposals of peace. Instead, they are proposals for surrender, which is dangerous and unacceptable.” Harris’ leading outward role on Thursday also drew attention away from the administration’s lack of certainty about how best to help Ukraine as winter approaches. In fact, Biden’s own vow opposite Zelenskyy in the Oval Office that “Russia will not prevail” papered over a more complicated reality. The president and his closest aides are somewhat dubious about Zelenskyy’s “victory plan,” according to two people familiar with internal conversations. They privately question his decision to launch an offensive into Russia, which has drawn troops away from the front lines in Donetsk, and worry about the long-term trajectory of the conflict. And Biden and British Prime Minister KEIR STARMER have yet to grant Zelenskyy’s top request: allowing Ukraine to fire U.S. and British missiles deeper into Russian territory. The administration’s hesitation has confounded some Ukraine hawks on Capitol Hill. They’ve started to express frustration publicly about why the White House won’t give Zelenskyy what he’s asking for. “We gave Ukraine these weapons for a reason,” Sen. MICHAEL BENNET (D-Colo.) said Thursday morning after taking part in a meeting with Zelenskyy. “They should be able to use them to strike military targets in Russia.” The proposal, according to the two people familiar with internal conversations who were granted anonymity to discuss them, remains under consideration despite the Pentagon’s view that a long-range missile offensive is unlikely to have much strategic impact — and despite a stark warning from Putin that it would mean a direct war between his country and the West. Putin’s long game in Ukraine may depend as much on waiting out Biden’s term — and the West’s resolve more broadly — as the long war of attrition on the battlefield. And, ultimately, on whom America elects to replace him. MESSAGE US — Are you MANUELA LUQUE, associate director for strategy and operations? We want to hear from you. And we’ll keep you anonymous! Email us at westwingtips@politico.com. Did someone forward this email to you? Subscribe here!
| 
