Media: Ukraine’s victory was never a goal for Biden

In the publication, Time notes that the victory of Ukraine in the war against Russia was not among the goals set by President Joe Biden.

Source: Time

Literally Time: “When Russia invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden identified three goals for the U.S. response. Victory for Ukraine was never among them. The phrase the White House used to describe its mission at the time was to support Ukraine “so much, how long will it take” – was intentionally vague. She also raised the question: How long will it take for what?”

Advertising:

Details: “We deliberately didn’t talk about territorial parameters,” says Eric Green, who at the time worked in Biden’s National Security Council and oversaw policy toward Russia.

In other words, the US did not promise to help Ukraine return all the lands occupied by Russia, and even more so – the vast territories in the east of Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula, seized during its first invasion in 2014.

Green says that the reason was simple: in the opinion of the White House, Ukraine is unable to do this, even with powerful help from the West.

“After all, this was not supposed to be a success story. The more important goal was the survival of Ukraine as a sovereign, democratic country, free in its pursuit of integration with the West.”

This was one of the three goals that Biden set.

He also wanted the US and its allies to remain united and insisted on avoiding direct conflict between Russia and NATO.

Looking back on his leadership during the war in Ukraine, which will certainly shape his legacy as a statesman, Biden has accomplished these three goals. But success on these limited terms does not satisfy even some of his closest allies and advisers.

Direct speech Green: “Unfortunately, it’s the kind of success where you don’t feel the satisfaction of it. Because there’s so much suffering in Ukraine and so much uncertainty about where it’s going to end up.”

Details: Ukrainians’ disillusionment with Biden had been building throughout the invasion, and they expressed it more openly after the US presidential election ended with Donald Trump’s victory.

On the air in early January, President Volodymyr Zelenskyi said that under Biden, the US did not do enough to impose sanctions against Russia and provide Ukraine with weapons and security guarantees.

In an interview with Lex Friedman, Zelensky said: “With all due respect to the United States and the administration, I don’t want a repeat of the situation that happened under Biden. I’m asking for sanctions now, please, and for weapons now.”

Details: The publication notes that the criticism was extremely sharp and seems even more remarkable given the amount of support the US has given to Ukraine during Biden’s tenure as president – $66 billion in military aid alone after the Russian invasion in February 2022, according to data US State Department.

Compared to all the aid that Congress has approved for Ukraine’s economic, humanitarian and other needs, the amount is about $183 billion as of last September, according to Ukraine Oversight, a U.S. government watchdog created in 2023 to monitor and reporting for all this assistance.

However, Zelenskyi and some of his allies insist that the US has been too cautious in confronting Russia, especially when it comes to giving Ukraine a clear path to NATO membership.

Direct speech Zelensky during his last visit to the White House in September: “It is very important that we share the same vision of Ukraine’s secure future – in the EU and NATO.”

Details: During this visit, Zelensky gave Biden a detailed list of requests, which he called Ukraine’s “victory plan”. In addition to the call for an invitation to join NATO, the plan called on the US to strengthen Ukraine’s position in the war with a significant new supply of weapons and permission to use them deep into Russian territory. At the time, Biden announced that he would not run for a second term, and Ukrainians hoped that his “lame duck” status would allow him to make bolder decisions, in particular, to preserve his legacy in foreign policy.

The appeals were received ambiguously. Biden did not budge on the issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO. But he approved a series of steps that the White House has long dismissed as too dangerous.

In November, the United States allowed Ukraine to use American missiles to strike deep into the Russian Federation. And in January, the Biden administration imposed tough sanctions against Russia’s energy sector, including the “shadow fleet” of tankers that Russia uses to export its oil.

Although these decisions did not meet Zelenskyi’s wishes, they helped Biden, during his last foreign policy speech during his tenure as president, to prove that the United States had achieved its goals in protecting Ukraine.

However, he remained careful not to promise that Ukraine would regain part of its territory or even survive to the end of this war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin “has not yet been able to conquer Ukraine,” Biden said in his speech at the State Department on January 13.

Direct speech Biden: “Today, Ukraine still remains a free, independent country with potential – potential for a bright future.”

Literally Time: “The future that Zelensky and many of his compatriots dream of is a future in which Russia will be defeated. But, calling on the world to fight, Biden included in his goals the implication that protecting Ukraine from Russia is not the same as victory over Russia. So it is not surprising that this goal remains distant for Zelenskyi.”