When Russia initiated its invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden outlined three primary objectives for the U.S. response. Notably, the goal of achieving a Ukrainian victory was not included among these aims. The administration’s stance was encapsulated in the somewhat vague commitment to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” raising questions about the specific outcomes this support intended to achieve.
“We purposefully avoided discussing territorial specifics,” explains Eric Green, a former member of Biden’s National Security Council who oversaw Russia policy during that period. Essentially, the U.S. did not commit to aiding Ukraine in reclaiming all territories occupied by Russia, particularly the vast regions in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula, which were annexed during the initial invasion in 2014. Green emphasizes that the White House believed such ambitions were beyond Ukraine’s reach, even with significant Western backing. “That scenario was unlikely to yield a successful outcome. The primary aim was to ensure Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign, democratic nation, free to pursue its integration with the West.”
These objectives formed the foundation of Biden’s strategy. The second goal was to maintain unity among the U.S. and its allies, while the third aimed to avoid direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. Reflecting on his leadership during the ongoing crisis in Ukraine—a situation likely to shape his legacy—Biden has successfully navigated these three aims. However, even among his closest allies and advisers, achieving these limited goals does not evoke a sense of fulfillment. “Unfortunately, it’s the kind of success that leaves one feeling unfulfilled,” Green commented in an interview with TIME. “The suffering endured by Ukraine and the uncertainty about the ultimate resolution weigh heavily on everyone.”
As the conflict has progressed, Ukrainian discontent with Biden has grown louder, especially following the U.S. presidential elections that resulted in Donald Trump’s victory. In a podcast released in early January, President Volodymyr Zelensky voiced that the U.S. has fallen short under Biden’s leadership in terms of imposing sanctions on Russia or providing Ukraine with essential weapons and security guarantees. “With all due respect to the United States and the administration,” Zelensky told Lex Fridman, “I don’t want to experience a repeat of what we faced with Biden. I urgently request sanctions and weapons—right now.”
Zelensky’s candid criticism is noteworthy, particularly given the substantial support the U.S. has provided to Ukraine during Biden’s presidency—totaling $66 billion in military assistance alone since the Russian invasion in February 2022, according to the U.S. State Department. When considering all forms of aid approved by Congress for Ukraine’s economic, humanitarian, and other needs, the total reaches approximately $183 billion as of last September, as reported by Ukraine Oversight, a U.S. government watchdog established in 2023 to monitor this assistance.
However, Zelensky and some of his allies argue that the U.S. has been too cautious in confronting Russia, particularly in terms of establishing a clear pathway for Ukraine’s NATO membership. “It is vital that we share a unified vision for Ukraine’s security future—within the E.U. and NATO,” the Ukrainian president stressed during his recent visit to the White House in September.
During that meeting, Zelensky presented Biden with a detailed list of requests he referred to as Ukraine’s “victory plan.” This plan not only sought an invitation to join NATO but also aimed to significantly enhance Ukraine’s military capabilities through a substantial influx of weapons and permission to deploy them deep into Russian territory. At that time, Biden had announced his intention not to seek re-election, and the Ukrainians were hopeful that his status as a lame duck would empower him to make bolder decisions, partly to secure his legacy in foreign affairs. “For us, his legacy represents a critical argument,” a senior member of Zelensky’s delegation shared with TIME. “How will history judge you?”
Responses to these requests were mixed. On the subject of Ukraine’s NATO ambitions, Biden maintained his position. However, he did authorize several actions that had previously been deemed too risky by the administration. In November, the U.S. allowed Ukraine to use American missiles for strikes deep within Russian territory. In January, the Biden administration imposed significant sanctions targeting the Russian energy sector, including measures against the “shadow fleet” of tankers Russia employs to transport its oil.
Though these actions fell short of Zelensky’s expectations, they enabled Biden to assert in his final foreign-policy address that the U.S. had met its objectives in defending Ukraine. Nevertheless, he remained cautious, avoiding promises that Ukraine would reclaim any additional territory or even endure the conflict’s conclusion. “Thus far, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not succeeded in subjugating Ukraine,” Biden stated in his January 13 address at the State Department. “Today, Ukraine remains a free and independent nation, with the potential—a potential for a promising future.”
The future envisioned by Zelensky and many Ukrainians is one in which Russia is decisively defeated. However, Biden’s underlying message, as he sought global support, suggested that defending Ukraine against Russia does not necessarily mean defeating Russia outright. Therefore, it is not surprising that such an ambitious goal remains a challenge for Zelensky.
