Bidnova administracija si nikoli ni delala iluzij, da lahko Ukrajina zmaga proti Rusiji ali dobi nazaj izgubljena ozemlja. Niti ni tega obljubljala. Kljub temu je tri leta financirala vojno v Ukrajini (s 183 milijardami dolarjev), da bi “krvavela Rusijo”, pod pretvezo, da želi Ukrajino ohraniti kot suvereno in demokratično državo. Zakaj hudiča so potem ZDA Ukrajino vabile v Nato (proti volji največjih EU držav) in zakaj jeseni leta 2021 niso želele podpisati sporazuma z Rusijo, da se Nato ne bo širil v Ukrajino, kar je ob načrtovani ukrajinski ofenzivi na pretežno rusko govoreči regiji Donetsk in Luhansk bil povod za ruski napad na Ukrajino?! Zakaj je moralo umreti ali bilo pohabljenih 1 milijon Ukrajincev in zakaj je bila Ukrajini vzeta bodočnost, če so se Američani samo malo igrali?

When Russia invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden set three objectives for the U.S. response. Ukraine’s victory was never among them. The phrase the White House used to describe its mission at the time—supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes”—was intentionally vague. It also raised the question: As long as it takes to do what?

“We were deliberately not talking about the territorial parameters,” says Eric Green, who served on Biden’s National Security Council at the time, overseeing Russia policy. The U.S., in other words, made no promise to help Ukraine recover all of the land Russia had occupied, and certainly not the vast territories in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula taken in its initial invasion in 2014. The reason was simple, Green says: in the White House’s view, doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West. “That was not going to be a success story ultimately. The more important objective was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.”

That was one of the three objectives Biden set. He also wanted the U.S. and its allies to remain united, and he insisted on avoiding direct conflict between Russia and NATO. Looking back on his leadership during the war in Ukraine — certain to shape his legacy as a statesman — Biden has achieved those three objectives. But success on those limited terms provides little satisfaction even to some of his closest allies and advisers. “It’s unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” Green says in an interview with TIME. “Because there is so much suffering for Ukraine and so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.” 

For the Ukrainians, disappointment with Biden has been building throughout the invasion, and they have expressed it ever more openly since the U.S. presidential elections ended in Donald Trump’s victory. In a podcast that aired in early January, President Volodymyr Zelensky said the U.S. had not done enough under Biden to impose sanctions against Russia and to provide Ukraine with weapons and security guarantees. “With all due respect to the United States and the administration,” Zelensky told Lex Fridman, “I don’t want the same situation like we had with Biden. I ask for sanctions now, please, and weapons now.”

Vir: Simon Shuster, Time