What does the US really want in the conflict in Ukraine?

In discussions about support for Ukraine, the important question that remains unanswered is what is the United States trying to achieve in Ukraine in the face of the impossibility of a complete victory?


What does the US want in Ukraine?

The US Congress finally passed a new $61 billion aid package for Ukraine and something strange happened. That discussions about Ukraine's victory have heated up again in Washington.

Over the past few months, American officials have issued gloomy warnings that without support, Ukrainian defenses could collapse and Russian troops would once again advance on Kiev. However, with the worst avoided, expectations are higher. President Biden's administration is currently trying to increase the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces over 10 years, a plan that could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars, while US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Ukraine will launch another counteroffensive in 2025.

However, according to observers on Foreign Policy, this optimism is misplaced. The newly approved support package may be the last major support package that the US provides to Ukraine.

According to geopolitical analyst Ian Bremmer: "It is unrealistic for the US to maintain providing Ukraine with $60 billion in annual assistance no matter who wins the presidential election." The current support package will largely put Ukraine in a better position for future negotiations. It would also improve ammunition and weapons shortages, as well as help Kiev's forces lose less territory in the coming months. However, Ukraine still faces other challenges: a lack of fortifications, a lack of manpower, and a stronger Russian army in every aspect. Overall, Ukraine remains in a weak position and Western support does not change this reality.

The White House has offered the additional support package as an "all or nothing" option: Pass on billions of dollars in support or see Ukraine fail.

In fact, in discussions about support for Ukraine, the important question that remains unanswered is what is the United States trying to achieve in Ukraine in the face of the impossibility of a complete victory?

The issue of ending the conflict in Ukraine is always fraught with difficulties. Political scientists often assume that any outcome to a war will involve diplomatic negotiations. Some observers have concluded that, if negotiations are inevitable, they should begin as soon as possible. Others believe that Ukraine must improve its position on the battlefield before entering the negotiating table. The Kiev government remains steadfast on the condition that Russia must withdraw all troops from Ukraine, including Crimea, before negotiations begin.

Some US officials pin their hopes on major Ukrainian attacks but admit that while this could avoid escalation, that scenario is not beneficial for Kiev. Observers commented on Foreign Policy that the White House was correct in assessing that support would help Ukraine have a stronger negotiating position. However, this also raises other questions: What should be decided when the moment of negotiation comes? Will Ukraine continue to fight without negotiations, will its negotiating position improve or decline?

This calculation is also complicated by issues about what the United States is trying to achieve in Ukraine. Some say it is about protecting democracy or the international order. But some other analysts say that the main goal of the US is to arm Ukraine with weapons to weaken Russia. According to them, maintaining the supply of weapons to Kiev will help the West deplete Russia's military capabilities. However, if it is to weaken Russia, this is an unending goal, hinting at a prolonged conflict in Ukraine. Given that Moscow is still capable of maintaining and replacing forces, it is unclear whether the West can succeed on this front.

Some other analysts have more specific goals: helping Ukraine regain territory or preventing Russia from occupying Odesa and other valuable locations. Although these are more specific goals, there is no consensus in the West and little willingness to promote peace negotiations once these goals are achieved.

That's why White House officials say Western support simply puts Ukraine in the best possible position at the negotiating table. Making such a judgment requires no difficult decisions about what territory Ukraine needs to regain and no consideration of how long Western support will continue. It also avoids the question of Ukraine's future direction - that is whether Kiev will join the EU or NATO - which perhaps needs to be resolved to end the conflict