Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a test for the ages, US president Joe Biden told the US Congress earlier this month.
He said that 12 months ago, the questions were whether the United States and the broader western world would stand for sovereignty, the right of people to live free of tyranny and the defence of democracy. “One year later, we know the answer. Yes, we would. And we did. We did,” he said during his state of the union address.
Speaking directly to the Ukrainian ambassador to the US, Oksana Markarova, Biden promised: “We’re going to stand with you as long as it takes.”
On Monday Biden will arrive in Poland, just a few hundred kilometres from the Ukrainian border, to mark the anniversary of Moscow’s invasion.
The White House takes pride that it put together a coalition of countries to oppose Russia. Perhaps more importantly it held together the Nato alliance when many sceptics believed it would fray as the going got tough, particularly as winter approached and Russian energy supplies dwindled.
The German research body the Kiel Institute estimates that last year the Biden administration provided nearly $50 billion in assistance to Ukraine, including humanitarian, financial and military support.
In advance of Air Force One arriving in Poland, the White House said the president would address “how the United States has rallied the world to support the people of Ukraine as they defend their freedom and democracy, and how we will continue to stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes”.
However, the political scene in Washington has changed over the last year. Opposition Republicans now control the House of Representatives, which will make it more complicated to get the flow of aid through Congress in future.
Some on the right are sceptical about the amount of money being sent to Ukraine. Several want answers about how it is being spent; others want it stopped completely.
The US, meanwhile, is entering another presidential election cycle.
Former president Donald Trump has claimed that Biden’s policies have brought the world to the brink of another global war. He has suggested in cryptic terms that he could end the Ukraine conflict quickly if he was in power.
“It can be negotiated within 24 hours. It really has to be done from the office of the president. You have to get them both in a room. And there are things you can say to them [Putin and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy], which I won’t reveal now, which will guarantee that this war will end immediately.”
Separate to the political critics, some military analysts argue the Biden administration is following a policy of incrementalism in its support for Ukraine. They contend it was only following protracted internal debate that the US provided Ukraine with heavier and more lethal weapons – and that it now should go all in to facilitate Kyiv in expelling Russia completely from its territory.
[ How solid is American support for Ukraine?Opens in new window ]
From the start the US has adopted a “slow but steady” approach. At the start it provided Javelin anti-armour and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to try to stem Russia’s initial thrust toward Kyiv and other cities.
Later on the US provided more advanced and longer-range artillery – including the Himars system – which allow Ukraine to target Russian command posts, troop concentrations, depots and key supply routes.
Just before Christmas the Biden administration said it would send to Ukraine its most advanced air defence weapon, the Patriot missile system. And then in January the president announced the US would, after months of internal dialogue, send 31 Abrams tanks.
More recently the conversation has been about fighter jets. Kyiv has asked for dozens of F-16s but Biden last month replied “no” when asked publicly if he would agree.
However, if the previous pattern is anything to go by, there will be weeks of wrangling, internally and with allies before eventually agreement will be reached to send aircraft to Ukraine.
Biden’s critics are divided in their opposition to his Ukraine strategy. Some argue that he should not be sending aid at all. Others contend he is too cautious; that the White House policy effectively is to send the Ukrainian military what they say they need – but only several months after they say they need it.
Among Republican politicians there are also differing views about the Ukraine war.
In December Republican leader in the Senate Mitch McConnell maintained “the most basic reasons for continuing to help Ukraine degrade and defeat the Russian invaders are cold, hard, practical American interests”.
“Helping equip our friends in eastern Europe to win this war is also a direct investment in reducing Putin’s future capabilities to menace the United States, threaten our allies, and contest our core interests.”
“Defeating Russia’s aggression will help prevent further security crises in Europe.”
McConnell said it would “massively wear down the arsenal that is available to Putin for future efforts to use bullying and bloodshed to redraw still other borders down the road”.
Republican speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy said before the recent midterm elections that there would be no more “blank cheques” for Ukraine, but apparently later assured colleagues that he was just seeking greater oversight.
However, earlier this month a group of about 10 right-wing Republicans in the House backed a resolution to end US military and financial aid to Ukraine while urging all sides to conclude a peace agreement. The move suggests that further aid packages for Kyiv may require a coalition of Democrats and Republicans to be authorised in the House.
Polling shows the divisions among politicians reflects the mood of their supporters. A Gallup poll this month found two-thirds of Americans backed the US supporting Ukraine in reclaiming territory even if it meant a prolonged conflict. However, among Republicans, nearly half believed the US was doing too much to help Ukraine.
Some in the US have contended the Ukraine conflict is essentially a proxy war between Nato and Russia.
However, at a conference at the Brookings Institution last week, Fiona Hill, the former White House adviser who testified at the impeachment hearing of Trump in 2019, asked whether Washington’s support for Britain before the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 would have been seen as a proxy war with Germany.
She suggested the Russia/Ukraine conflict was being viewed “in a cold war mindset”.
Matt Duss, visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, urged that Biden speak more frequently to the public about the importance of continuing to support Ukraine.
He said among Democrats there was still strong support for Ukraine policy although there were voices who stressed the need for diplomacy.
“On the right, I’ve just been in conversation with a number of former Senate colleagues on the Republican side over this past week. And, you know, even among Republican senators who publicly remain very supportive, they are hearing at their own town halls these questions again: what are we doing? Explain why this is good for us, why aren’t you paying attention to the border, all this stuff, you know?
“Yes, this stuff is amplified by Fox News, but we should not treat it as illegitimate. These are questions that need to be addressed, and I think they can be addressed.”
He warned if inflation surged again and if the war became bogged down, Biden’s policy could face greater resistance or at least questioning among Democrats.
Hill said what Biden “does not want to do is sit down at a table and basically divide up Europe” into spheres of influence as it was towards the end of second World War. She said this was Putin’s goal.
War in Europe, One Year On:
Lara Marlowe on Macron’s pirouettes on Russia and Ukraine
Germany shakes off historic demons to back Ukraine against Russia
Britain champions Ukraine abroad while lapping up dirty Russian laundry
