In a significant policy turn, the Biden administration is setting sights on a long-term strategy in Ukraine, one that envisages a robust buildup of the Ukrainian Armed Forces over the next decade. The recent approval of around $61 billion in new aid marks a striking shift in the narrative from impending collapse to the resurgence of talk about a Ukrainian victory in Washington circles. Yet, amidst this optimism, concerns loom large over the sustainability of such massive financial commitments and the strategic endgame of the United States in a conflict that, despite aid influxes, continues to show Ukraine as the weaker belligerent against a surprisingly resilient Russian military force.
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s suggestion that Ukraine might mount another counteroffensive in 2025 underscores a belief in the war’s prolonged nature and the necessity of sustained support. However, this comes against a backdrop of warnings from geopolitical analysts like Ian Bremmer who posit that “America continuing to send Ukraine [$]60 billion in support year after year [is] unrealistic no matter who wins the presidency.” The concerns are not only fiscal but also strategic, as the U.S. has yet to clearly articulate its objectives or how it intends to balance the risks and rewards of its Ukraine policy.
The strategic ambiguity in the U.S. approach points to a reluctance in Washington to confront the difficult questions about the nature of victory and the terms of an acceptable end to the conflict. The narrative of aiding Ukraine to improve its negotiating position at some future bargaining table has gained traction, yet this conveniently skirts the tough decisions on the territorial ambitions of Ukraine and the duration of Western commitment. The echoes of past “forever wars,” where open-ended conflicts sought unattainable absolute victory, are reverberating through the corridors of power, igniting debates about the future direction of U.S. policy.
The escalating discourse has led to proposals of intensifying involvement, from suggestions of British-provided weapons striking targets inside Russia to the potential deployment of U.S. military advisors on Ukrainian soil. Each comes with its own set of risks, signaling a step closer to direct engagement and raising the specter of a larger conflict.
While the Biden administration has funneled significant resources towards Ukraine’s defense, critics argue for a more nuanced strategy that distinguishes between Ukrainian and American interests and focuses on realistic outcomes. This includes incentivizing Ukraine to prioritize defense over offense and pushing for negotiations with Russia, perhaps in the summer of 2024, when new aid deliveries might stabilize the front line.
Moreover, the U.S. must consider shifting some of the responsibility to its European allies who have a direct stake in the region’s stability. With the possibility that U.S. support could wane due to domestic political shifts or global crises, European nations are called to step up their commitments and coordinate defense efforts more robustly.
Relevant articles:
– U.S. Ukraine Policy: What’s Biden’s Endgame? , Foreign Policy, 05/10/2024
– Trump-affiliated group releases new national security book outlining possible second-term approach, The Washington Post, 05/09/2024
– Daily Review: Biden’s (Temporary) Migration Fix, World Politics Review, 05/08/2024