When Russia invaded Ukraine almost three years ago, President Biden established three U.S. response objectives. A Ukrainian victory wasn’t among them. The White House’s “supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes” statement was deliberately ambiguous, leaving the duration’s purpose unclear.
“We intentionally avoided specifying territorial boundaries,” explains Eric Green, a former Biden National Security Council member overseeing Russia policy. The U.S. didn’t promise helping Ukraine reclaim all occupied lands, especially territories seized since 2014. Green clarifies that the White House believed this was unattainable for Ukraine, even with Western support. “That wouldn’t be a successful outcome. The priority was Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign, democratic nation, free to pursue Western integration.”
This was one of Biden’s three objectives. He also sought allied unity and prevented direct NATO-Russia conflict. Reflecting on his Ukraine leadership—crucial to his legacy—Biden achieved these goals. However, even close allies and advisors find this limited success unsatisfying. “It’s a success that doesn’t feel good,” Green told TIME. “Because of Ukraine’s immense suffering and the future’s uncertainty.”
Ukrainian disappointment with Biden grew throughout the invasion, escalating after Trump’s presidential win. In an early January podcast, President Zelensky criticized insufficient U.S. sanctions on Russia and inadequate weapons/security guarantees. “With all due respect,” Zelensky told Lex Fridman, “I don’t want a repeat of the Biden situation. I urge immediate sanctions and weapons.”
This criticism is striking, given significant U.S. support: $66 billion in military aid since February 2022 (according to ). Including all Congressional aid, the total reached roughly $183 billion by September 2023 (according to , a 2023 U.S. government watchdog).
Yet, Zelensky and allies believe the U.S. was too cautious against Russia, particularly regarding NATO membership. “Shared vision for Ukraine’s future security in the E.U. and NATO is vital,” Zelensky told the White House in September.
During that visit, Zelensky presented Biden with a “victory plan.” Besides NATO membership, it pushed for strengthened Ukrainian war capabilities via a massive weapons influx and permission to strike deep within Russia. Hoping Biden’s lame-duck status would encourage bolder decisions (partially for legacy reasons), Ukrainians believed this was their chance. “His legacy is our argument,” a senior Zelensky delegate told TIME. “How will history remember you?”
The response was mixed. Biden remained firm on NATO membership but approved previously rejected actions. In November, Ukraine received U.S. permission to strike deep inside Russia. January saw tough sanctions against Russia’s energy sector, including its oil export “shadow fleet.”
While short of Zelensky’s desires, these decisions aided Biden’s final foreign policy speech, claiming U.S. goal achievement in defending Ukraine. He cautiously avoided promises of territorial recovery or war survival. Putin “has failed to subjugate Ukraine,” Biden stated on January 13th. “Ukraine remains a free, independent country, with potential for a bright future.”
Zelensky and many Ukrainians envision a Russia-defeated future. However, Biden’s objectives implied defending Ukraine against Russia differs from defeating Russia. Therefore, Zelensky’s goal remains distant.
“`