When Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden outlined three core objectives for the U.S. response. Notably, achieving a Ukrainian victory was not among these goals. The administration’s commitment was articulated with the ambiguous phrase of supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” prompting questions about the specific outcomes this support aimed to achieve.
“We intentionally refrained from discussing territorial specifics,” explains Eric Green, a former member of Biden’s National Security Council who managed Russia policy during that time. Essentially, the U.S. did not pledge to assist Ukraine in regaining all the territories seized by Russia, particularly the extensive areas in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula, which were taken during the initial invasion in 2014. Green emphasizes that the White House believed that such ambitions were beyond Ukraine’s capabilities, even with substantial Western support. “That scenario was unlikely to yield a successful outcome. The primary goal was to ensure Ukraine continued to exist as a sovereign, democratic nation, free to pursue its integration with the West.”
This was one of the three objectives Biden set forth. The second was to maintain unity among the U.S. and its allies, while the third focused on steering clear of any direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. Reflecting on his leadership throughout the Ukrainian conflict—a situation likely to define his legacy as a statesman—Biden has effectively accomplished these three aims. However, achieving these limited goals does not bring satisfaction, even among his closest allies and advisers. “Unfortunately, it’s the kind of success that leaves one feeling unfulfilled,” Green remarked 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 disappointment with Biden has been growing, becoming increasingly vocal, especially after the U.S. presidential elections resulted in Donald Trump’s victory. In a podcast released in early January, President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed that the U.S. has not done enough under Biden’s leadership to impose sanctions on Russia or provide Ukraine with necessary weapons and security assurances. “With all due respect to the United States and the administration,” Zelensky stated to Lex Fridman, “I don’t want to experience a repeat of what we faced with Biden. I urgently request sanctions and weapons—right now.”
The directness of his criticism is striking, especially considering the substantial support the U.S. has extended to Ukraine during Biden’s presidency—amounting to $66 billion in military aid alone since the Russian invasion in February 2022, as reported by the U.S. State Department. When factoring in all the assistance Congress has approved for Ukraine’s economic, humanitarian, and other needs, the total reaches about $183 billion as of last September, according to Ukraine Oversight, a U.S. government watchdog established in 2023 to monitor this aid.
However, Zelensky and some of his allies contend that the U.S. has exhibited excessive caution in confronting Russia, particularly regarding a clear pathway to NATO membership for Ukraine. “It is crucial that we share a unified vision for Ukraine’s security future—within the E.U. and NATO,” the Ukrainian president emphasized during his recent White House visit in September.
During that meeting, Zelensky presented Biden with a comprehensive list of requests he referred to as Ukraine’s “victory plan.” This plan not only sought an invitation to join NATO but also called for significantly bolstering Ukraine’s military position through a large influx of weapons and the authorization to deploy them deep into Russian territory. At that point, Biden had announced he would not 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 foreign affairs legacy. “For us, his legacy represents a critical argument,” a senior member of Zelensky’s delegation conveyed to TIME. “How will history judge you?”
The responses to these appeals were mixed. On the matter of Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, Biden remained firm in his position. However, he did approve several actions that had previously been deemed too risky by the White House. In November, the U.S. granted Ukraine permission to utilize American missiles for strikes deep within Russian territory. In January, the Biden administration implemented severe sanctions targeting the Russian energy sector, including measures against the “shadow fleet” of tankers Russia uses to transport its oil.
Although these decisions fell short of Zelensky’s expectations, they enabled Biden to assert in his final foreign-policy address that the U.S. had fulfilled its objectives in defending Ukraine. Nonetheless, he remained cautious, refraining from making promises that Ukraine would reclaim any additional territory or even survive the conclusion of the conflict. “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 where Russia is decisively defeated. However, Biden’s implicit message, as he rallied global support, was that defending Ukraine against Russia does not equate to defeating Russia. Therefore, it is not surprising that such an ambitious goal remains elusive for Zelensky.