When Russia initiated its military aggression against Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden outlined three primary objectives for the United States’ response. Notably absent from these aims was the explicit goal of ensuring a Ukrainian victory. The administration’s stance was articulated with the ambiguous phrase of supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” raising questions about what specific outcomes this support was intended to achieve.
“We made a conscious decision not to delve into territorial specifics,” explains Eric Green, a former member of Biden’s National Security Council who oversaw Russia policy at that time. Essentially, the U.S. did not commit to helping Ukraine recover all the territories taken by Russia, particularly the vast areas in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula seized during the initial invasion in 2014. Green points out that the White House was concerned that such ambitions exceeded Ukraine’s capabilities, even with considerable Western backing. “That kind of scenario was unlikely to result in a successful outcome. The main objective was to ensure Ukraine remained a sovereign, democratic state, free to pursue its integration with the West.”
These were among the three key goals Biden articulated. The second goal was to maintain solidarity among the U.S. and its allies, while the third aimed to avoid any direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. Reflecting on his leadership during the Ukrainian conflict—a challenge likely to shape his legacy—Biden has managed to achieve these three objectives. However, meeting these limited goals has not left him or his close allies feeling satisfied. “Unfortunately, it’s the kind of success that leaves one feeling unfulfilled,” Green noted in a TIME interview. “The hardships faced by Ukraine and the uncertainty regarding the eventual resolution weigh heavily on everyone involved.”
As the conflict has unfolded, Ukraine’s disappointment with Biden has intensified, becoming more vocal, particularly following the U.S. presidential elections that resulted in Donald Trump’s victory. In a podcast released in early January, President Volodymyr Zelensky conveyed that the U.S. has not done enough under Biden’s administration in terms of imposing sanctions on Russia or providing Ukraine with necessary military aid and security guarantees. “With all due respect to the United States and the administration,” Zelensky stated to Lex Fridman, “I don’t want to face a repeat of what we experienced with Biden. I urgently request sanctions and weapons—immediately.”
Zelensky’s blunt criticism stands out, especially given the significant support the U.S. has provided to Ukraine during Biden’s presidency—totaling around $66 billion in military assistance alone since the Russian invasion began in February 2022, according to the U.S. State Department. When considering all the support Congress has approved for Ukraine’s economic, humanitarian, and other needs, the total reaches approximately $183 billion as of last September, based on information from Ukraine Oversight, a U.S. government watchdog set up in 2023 to oversee this aid.
Nevertheless, Zelensky and some of his allies argue that the U.S. has shown excessive caution in its approach to Russia, particularly concerning a clear path to NATO membership for Ukraine. “It is essential 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 an extensive list of requests he termed Ukraine’s “victory plan.” This plan sought not only 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 this juncture, Biden had revealed that he would not be seeking re-election, and the Ukrainians were hopeful that his status as a lame duck would empower him to make bolder decisions, partly to cement his legacy in foreign affairs. “For us, his legacy is a vital argument,” a senior member of Zelensky’s delegation expressed to TIME. “How will history judge you?”
The responses to these requests were varied. Regarding Ukraine’s NATO ambitions, Biden remained steadfast in his stance. However, he did authorize several actions that had previously been considered too risky by the White House. In November, the U.S. granted Ukraine permission to use American missiles for strikes deep within Russian territory. In January, the Biden administration imposed stringent sanctions targeting the Russian energy sector, including actions against the “shadow fleet” of tankers that Russia employs to transport its oil.
While these decisions did not fully meet Zelensky’s expectations, they allowed Biden to assert in his final foreign policy address that the U.S. had achieved its objectives in supporting Ukraine. Nevertheless, he remained cautious, avoiding promises that Ukraine would reclaim any additional territory or even endure through the conclusion of the conflict. “So far, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not succeeded in subjugating Ukraine,” Biden stated during his January 13 address at the State Department. “Today, Ukraine stands as a free and independent nation, with the potential—for a promising future.”
The future envisioned by Zelensky and many Ukrainians is one where Russia faces a decisive defeat. However, Biden’s underlying message, as he sought global support, was that defending Ukraine against Russia does not necessarily mean defeating Russia. Consequently, it is not surprising that such an ambitious goal remains out of reach for Zelensky.
