How Joe Biden's failures over Ukraine have forced Donald Trump's hand

As President Joe Biden counts down his final days in the White House and the brutal conflict in Ukraine grinds on, it is now becoming increasingly clear that the his administration’s overly cautious approach to weapons deliveries significantly undermined Ukraine's ability to push back against Russian aggression and prolonged the war.

While the administration has committed billions in aid and military support to Kyiv, its hesitant and inconsistent decision-making has deprived Ukraine of the momentum it desperately needed to degrade Russian forces earlier in the war. This dithering prolonged the conflict and delayed the possibility of a negotiated peace from a position of strength.

Since the invasion began, President Biden’s pattern has been one of incremental escalation, characterised by an initial reluctance to provide critical weapons systems, followed by eventual reversals under pressure from allies and Congress. Time and again, this cautious approach has hamstrung Ukraine's military strategy at pivotal moments, allowing Russia to regroup and entrench its positions.

US President Joe Biden's failure to provide Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky with vital military equipment like Himars missiles, advanced tanks and warplanes quickly enough has seen the conflict drag on for too long, testing American taxpayers' patience (Picture: Samuel Corum) | AFP via Getty Images

Himars missile delays

Consider the saga of providing High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (Himars). Early in the conflict, Biden ruled out sending them, fearing it could provoke Russia into escalating the war beyond Ukraine’s borders. When Himars were finally delivered months later, their impact was immediately apparent.

Ukrainian forces used them to great effect, targeting Russian ammunition depots and logistics hubs. However, even then, the administration imposed restrictions on the range of missiles provided, limiting Ukraine's ability to strike deep into Russian-controlled territory. These restrictions were only eased much later, by which time Russia had adapted its logistics and defences.

A similar pattern emerged with tanks and fighter jets. Early on, Biden firmly rejected calls to send advanced Western tanks such as the M1 Abrams, citing logistical challenges and the risk of escalation. Only after months of pressure from Nato allies and domestic critics did the administration agree to provide a limited number of Abrams tanks.

But by then, Ukraine’s counteroffensive had already begun, forcing its forces to rely on older Soviet-era models. The delayed arrival of these advanced tanks meant they could not be used to maximum effect during critical phases of the offensive.

Missed chance for air superiority

Fighter jets followed the same trajectory. Biden repeatedly dismissed the idea of sending F-16s, arguing that Ukraine did not need them for the type of combat it was waging. Yet months later, the administration approved their delivery, with Ukrainian pilots now racing against the clock to train on them. These delays prevented Ukraine from establishing air superiority, a crucial element in any military strategy aimed at retaking occupied territory.

Even when the administration did provide weapons systems in a timely manner, it often imposed restrictive conditions on their use, only to reverse course later. For example, early shipments of artillery shells and missile systems came with strict limitations on targeting, ostensibly to avoid hitting Russian soil.

Over time, as Ukraine proved itself a disciplined and effective partner, these restrictions were lifted. But by then, critical opportunities had been missed to strike Russian supply lines and infrastructure during key phases of the war.

Spectre of escalation

This hesitancy has cost Ukraine dearly. Momentum is a decisive factor in any conflict, and the delays in US weapons deliveries allowed Russian forces to regroup and dig in, transforming what could have been a rapid counteroffensive into a protracted slog. With faster and more decisive support, Ukraine could have more effectively degraded Russia’s military capabilities, forcing Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table much earlier. Instead, the conflict has dragged on, with devastating consequences for the Ukrainian people and global stability.

To be sure, Biden’s caution is not without context. The spectre of escalation loomed large in the early days of the war, and concerns about managing Nato unity were valid. But the administration’s inability to align its actions with the reality on the ground in Ukraine has been a strategic failure. By the time Biden acknowledged that Kyiv needed advanced weaponry, the costs of the conflict had multiplied, and opportunities for a decisive Ukrainian victory had narrowed.

History will likely judge Biden’s incrementalism harshly. While his administration deserves credit for rallying Nato and providing significant support, its reluctance to act decisively when it mattered most will be remembered as a failure of vision and leadership. For Ukraine, every delay in weapons deliveries has meant more lives lost, more cities destroyed, and more time for Putin to pursue his imperial ambitions.

US taxpayers have lost patience

In less than two weeks, Donald Trump will take office, having repeatedly claimed he could end the Ukraine war in mere days. Yet, bombastic rhetoric aside, even if Kamala Harris had become president, she would have confronted the same unavoidable truth: the conflict is no longer politically tenable.

President Biden’s prolonged and costly strategy has exhausted both American taxpayers and public patience. Billions of dollars funnelled into the war effort have yielded no definitive resolution, while critical domestic issues – rampant inflation, crumbling infrastructure, and strained social services – demand immediate attention.

President Trump will be forced to recalibrate US foreign policy. Continued open-ended support for Ukraine faces a growing backlash from a war-weary electorate, as well as from key allies who are also eager to stabilise their own economies. The political and economic toll of this conflict has reached a breaking point, leaving little room for further escalation or prolonged stalemates.

Whether through aggressive deal-making or cautious diplomacy, the new president will have no choice but to signal a shift in US priorities and pursue a negotiated settlement.

If the US is to maintain its credibility as a global leader, it must learn from these mistakes. Supporting allies in their fight for freedom requires not just resources but the courage to act decisively. Anything less risks prolonging conflicts and undermining the very values the US claims to defend.

Dr Azeem Ibrahim OBE is senior director at the New Lines Institute and former reservist in the Parachute Regiment