6 March, 17:53
Since the beginning of the full-scale war in Ukraine, the role of the United States in supporting Kyiv has been closely scrutinized by analysts and commentators. However, amid obvious arms supplies and financial aid to Ukraine, opinions have emerged suggesting that the U.S. is not merely weakening Russia but is also deliberately preventing its total collapse.
Since the beginning of the full-scale war in Ukraine, the role of the United States in supporting Kyiv has been closely scrutinized by analysts and commentators. However, amid obvious arms supplies and financial aid to Ukraine, opinions have emerged suggesting that the U.S. is not merely weakening Russia but is also deliberately preventing its total collapse. This approach is driven by Washington's long-term strategic interests and aligns with the historical logic of American foreign policy.
The Dual Objective of the U.S. in the Ukrainian Conflict
Western support for Ukraine is often explained not only by moral but also by pragmatic considerations. For the U.S., this war provides an opportunity to weaken a major military adversary in Eurasia without direct military involvement, using Russia's own resource constraints against itself. However, according to some analysts, the American strategy has another important aspect: keeping Russia in the status of a controlled geopolitical player that constantly generates threats and can be used in international political maneuvers.
The division of tasks among different U.S. administrations also supports the hypothesis of a strategic balance: the Trump administration, unlike its predecessors, is taking more steps to slow down arms deliveries, which could be interpreted as a desire to keep Russia in a weakened but not catastrophic state.
Limited Arms Supplies: A Containment Tactic
In 2022, when the Ukrainian army achieved successes near Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson, many expected the U.S. to provide more significant support in the form of heavy weaponry and long-range missiles. However, arms were delivered in small batches, and strategically crucial decisions were delayed.
This approach allowed the U.S. to:
- avoid a rapid military collapse of Russia;
- extend the conflict over years, contributing to the gradual demilitarization of Russia;
- minimize the risk of full-scale destabilization in the region.
As a result, despite the degradation of the Russian army, Russia managed to adapt to prolonged conflict by conducting partial mobilization and securing arms supplies through third countries.
Ukraine Opposes a 'Frozen' Conflict
As Ukrainian forces increasingly strike deep into Russian territory, calls to halt hostilities have intensified. U.S. voices advocating a "freeze" of the conflict have grown louder, which would effectively mean preserving the current status quo. For Ukraine, this is unacceptable as it would give Russia a chance to regroup and prepare for another round of war in the future.
Limiting arms supplies and intelligence sharing can be seen as a tool to pressure Kyiv into negotiations. However, Ukrainian leadership remains committed to a strategy of fully exhausting the enemy.
Europe Trapped in U.S. Strategy
Despite supporting Ukraine, European countries have found themselves in a vulnerable position. Long-term policies of reducing defense budgets have left Western Europe without sufficient resources for independent security. In this context, dependence on the U.S. has only increased, creating risks of manipulation through military supplies and potential pressure from Washington.
Moreover, some analysts point to the possibility of the U.S. using Russia as a factor to weaken European unity by exploiting the interests of individual states. This multi-layered strategy could leave the EU in a state of political uncertainty amid a prolonged conflict.
The U.S. and China: The Strategic Challenge of the 21st Century
From a global perspective, Washington's primary challenge is not Russia but China. The U.S. is trying to prevent excessive Moscow-Beijing rapprochement, complicating its policy toward Ukraine. In this regard, keeping Russia in a weakened but not destroyed state can be seen as a way to control its foreign policy maneuvers.
However, the American strategy faces challenges:
- China remains Russia’s largest economic partner, providing it with access to technology and resources;
- Russian-Chinese cooperation in the defense sector is growing;
- Internal instability within the U.S. undermines its ability to conduct long-term foreign policy.
Social and economic problems within the U.S. make American hegemony less stable, while their allies become more dependent on Washington's decisions. This creates maneuvering space for other global players, including China.
Conclusion
The U.S. is playing a complex geopolitical game in which weakening Russia is a means, not an end. Washington seeks to prevent Moscow’s total military defeat so that it can continue using Russia as an element of counterbalance in the global strategic balance.
However, this policy carries risks: Ukraine may refuse to compromise, and Europe may rethink its role in the security system. Meanwhile, China continues to expand its influence, capitalizing on uncertainty and the weakness of American decisions.
Amid these developments, the world is entering a new period of instability, where previous geopolitical schemes no longer work, and the global balance of power continues to shift in favor of new players.