The United States has overpromised support to Ukraine. President Biden and the White House have vowed that the flow of American money and arms to aid in the war effort will continue “for as long as it takes.” As Americans continue to sour on further support, and Biden’s $60 billion aid package is stalled in the U.S. House, that promise appears more and more impossible. Even House Speaker Mike Johnson’s new attempt to move a $43 billion proposal faces harsh backlash from his fellow Republicans that threatens his continued speakership.
After a disappointing counteroffensive last year that left Ukraine with depleted resources and a serious manpower shortage, and as other world events like the ongoing war in Gaza demand American attention, many Republican lawmakers and former President Donald Trump have called for an end to further support to Kyiv. America is already struggling to replace the limited supply of equipment they have sent. It’s time for President Biden to initiate hard conversations with Kyiv to discuss how to win the war on realistic terms.
While complex and advanced systems like tanks, armored personnel carriers, and sophisticated anti-air weapons are important for Ukraine’s ability to fight back, the United States is struggling just to produce enough of the relatively simple artillery ammunition that Kyiv relies on to push back Russian front lines. In early 2023, American factories were producing just over 3,000 155mm artillery shells a month. As Ukraine’s needs became more apparent, factories surged production — working overtime to up production to 28,000 a month, or 336,000 a year. Ukraine fired 6,000 shells a day during its counteroffensive, and could need over 2,100,000 shells a year to maintain the kind of high intensity effort that failed to push back Russian forces last year. These hard realities lead many to question the feasibility of Ukraine retaking the rest of their territory from Russia.
It remains unlikely that lawmakers will pass another multi-billion dollar package filled with advanced weapon systems and an open-ended resupply of munitions. Going into an election year, lawmakers are more likely to back significantly smaller support focused on providing the material and construction supplies for hardening Ukraine’s front lines. The White House could help Kyiv weather further Russian offensives and reduce the risk of losing further territory by encouraging Ukraine to build more lines of fortified positions, digging trenches, laying minefields, and placing “dragon’s teeth” tank traps. The resources needed for this approach are substantially more affordable and easier to source — and most importantly, they’re far more realistic than further tranches of expensive military hardware.
While Ukraine has professed a desire to expel all Russian forces and return to its pre-2014 borders, the success of this approach appears increasingly unlikely as Russia taps into vast resources and a significant population for a long war. Ukraine is already struggling to find fighting age men to rotate troops and continue its efforts. As unpleasant as it may be, Kyiv must begin considering what negotiations with its aggressor could look like, and what could be acceptable and realistic terms for a ceasefire. Though any pause in fighting would give Moscow the opportunity to resupply and prepare for further fighting, the same is true for Kyiv and its partners in Europe that are still supplying arms.
It is unlikely that Russia and Ukraine will find a just peace anytime soon, and no one should expect a satisfying end to this war in the near future. But most conflicts don’t end in total victory, and some armistices can see an end to fighting for decades. The Korean Armistice, for example, has seen a lack of major fighting for over 70 years that has allowed South Korea to blossom into a wealthy and well-armed democracy. In terms of GDP alone, South Korea shot from $40.9 million in 1953 to $1.7 trillion today. A similar story could be true for Ukraine if it’s willing to explore hard decisions now.
As long as American officials are writing checks to Kyiv, Ukraine will continue to push for maximalist goals. Already those checks are starting to bounce. If Biden and his defense officials persist in this approach, failing to honestly discuss what America can afford to send Kyiv, they will leave the nation vulnerable to another counteroffensive without the arms and ammo to succeed.
Robert Clarke is a Young Voices contributor working on foreign affairs and national security in Washington, D.C.. His commentary on U.S. foreign policy has appeared in The American Conservative, The National Interest, and the Financial Times. Follow him on X at @ClarkeDynamics
