President Joe Biden once promised Ukraine “whatever it takes” in American support “for as long as it takes”. While this rhetoric was meant to be inspiring, it was a flippant and unrealistic promise from the outset. And now it rings hollow. Although Donald Trump has promised to send more weapons to Ukraine, the administration is reportedly scrambling to source the desired Patriot missile platform and highly-in-demand interceptors from allies. The administration’s initial instinct to husband resources was sound; the President is increasingly forced to choose between Ukraine’s present needs, and America’s own present readiness.
The fact is American foreign policy no longer adds up, the commitments made by previous administrations exceed the American ability to meet them. American promises have been outrunning American supply lines. And worse, policymakers have been trying for decades to come up with a model for achieving their foreign policy aims extra-democratically. The use of air power, covert ops, drone warfare and promiscuous outsourcing to local proxies is their admission that the American people cannot be brought to support these foreign policy goals vigorously, taking on real risks and costs. Taken together it’s a recipe for launching idealistic policy and then leaving it marooned.
Consider when the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth promised an “unrelenting” campaign against the Houthis, who were harassing global shipping from Yemen. “The minute the Houthis say, ‘We’ll stop shooting at your ships, we’ll stop shooting at your drones,’ this campaign will end,” he promised. Despite expending hundreds of millions of dollars in munitions — dropping hundreds of 2,000-pound bombs, 75 Tomahawks, and perhaps more than 20 AGM cruise missiles — the Houthis have not relented, using their much cheaper weapons at hand. The mounting cost led to the US working out an agreement with the Iranian-backed group.
Far from being a novelty imposed by the Trump administration, the United States has been triaging its resources among existing conflicts for years. In late 2023, the US redirected tens of thousands of 155-milimeter artillery shells allocated for Ukraine to Israel. In early June 20,000 anti-drone missiles (APKWS) were diverted to the Middle East to protect US troops from potential Iranian retaliation.
Speaking of Iran, we used a significant portion of our famous “bunker busters”, or GBU-57A/B MOPs, in the raid on Iran’s nuclear facility. The Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said the bombing raids had set back Iran’s nuclear program by one or two years. If that estimate is true, it means Iran may have its nuclear program back to where it was long before we have replenished the bombs used to set them back. The Air Force’s “Next Generation Penetrator,” the expected successor to the MOP, is due for initial prototypes within 18 to 24 months.
The American military-industrial base is simply not producing fast enough, and the consequences for American policy — and American allies — are serious. After aiding Ukraine, it will take years to replenish the country’s own supply of Stingers, a weapon Taiwan is also seeking. The AUKUS naval agreement, where the UK and USA stepped in front of France to provide Australia with naval ships, is also currently under review. The deal was already expected to delay the first ships from reaching Australia from the early 2030s to the early 2040s. But beyond that, the US is already experiencing multi-year delays and massive cost overruns in production of Virginia-class submarines, which are essential for the first phase of AUKUS.
Hawks in both parties have argued that the only way to prevent China from making an attempt at Taiwan, and from breaking US supremacy in the Pacific, is to back Ukraine and Israel to the hilt. Their theory is that we can deter Xi Jinping by demonstrating sheer will. (It is a theory of deterrence that obviously appeals to moralizing columnists whose stances risk them nothing.)
But surely, Xi Jinping is doing just what the Pentagon is now: seriously considering what the depletion of US weapons stockpiles means for him. His Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, made remarks just this week to European diplomats, implying that China sees strategic benefit in a prolonged conflict in Ukraine, because it keeps the US, its allies, and their resources tied up in Europe. Our grandiose promises — these supposed demonstrations of will — do not intimidate China. Not when they are followed up with delayed deliveries and decaying credibility.
Hawkish foreign policy advisors are correct that American will and willfulness matters. American credibility is built on matching our promises to our resources, and our people’s willingness to back them up. But US foreign policy-making is increasingly reserved to an insulated coterie around the White House court around the White House, which is disconnected from the people whose blood and treasure is ultimately on the line.
And that is why Biden’s Ukraine policy has fallen into a ditch. Large majorities of Americans, going back to 2022, said they supported Ukraine in its defensive war. This reflects their morally sensible belief that Russia was an unjust aggressor. But even then, at the start of the war, more granular polling showed that the American people’s appetite for involvement in the conflict was severely limited. Early surveys showed that only 26% of Americans thought the US should play “a major role” in the conflict. A Target Point survey in February 2022 asked Republican voters in Pennsylvania what their preferred response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was. Only 23% chose “Arm and support the Ukraine resistance so they can kill as many Russians as possible” — the preferred policy of the then-president and the foreign policy court. 45% said, “Impose the strongest possible sanctions on Russia and seek a diplomatic deal.”
The Biden White House built its Ukraine policy in the gap between America’s view of the war’s justice and the resources it was willing to contribute. That presented a huge moral hazard for Ukraine’s leaders, whose war calculus has been distorted by the fantasy of endless superpower backing.
Trump’s preference for a negotiated end to the Ukraine war matches his desire to refocus on China. It also takes more seriously the limits imposed by our current supply constraints, and the willingness of the American people to involve their honor, their weapons, and their treasure in foreign wars. Trump used to put his name on casinos where some men tried to save themselves by throwing good money after bad. But there are no blank checks in foreign policy. Trying to make good on promises for “whatever it takes” will lead to strategic exhaustion and moral collapse.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Michael Brendan Dougherty
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://unherd.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
