How the U.S. Misled Ukraine and Enabled Russia’s War

Exploring the U.S. failure to lead decisively in Ukraine, enabling Russia’s aggression and reshaping global security with tragic consequences.

What We’ve Learned the Hard Way

Photo by Vony Razom on Unsplash

Wars are never fought in isolation. They echo across borders, economies, and ideologies. But perhaps the most dangerous myth that persists in the halls of Washington is that such wars can be micromanaged, measured out in aid packages, shaped by press releases, and waged without consequence to the wielder of power.

From the earliest days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the United States presented itself as Ukraine’s most stalwart supporter. It provided weapons, trained soldiers and condemned Kremlin aggression in no uncertain terms. But behind that rhetorical resolve was a deeply flawed approach: one that overestimated American influence, underestimated Russia’s staying power, and failed to reckon with the hard limits of strategic ambiguity.

Ukraine, meanwhile, was left to fight a war that Washington helped prolong through indecision. And when it mattered most, American leaders misled both their allies and themselves, most tragically about what Donald Trump would do if he returned to power.

The lesson the world is learning in real time is this: when the most powerful democracy refuses to lead with clarity, others pay the price in blood. This wasn’t just a miscalculation. It was a moral failure. And it has reshaped the future of global security.

The Hubris of Hesitation

The Biden administration inherited a fragile international order and a volatile domestic political climate. But instead of meeting the moment with strategic boldness, it fell back on incrementalism, carefully weighing each missile shipment, walking back red lines, and postponing decisions that could have turned the tide early in Ukraine’s favour.

The U.S. sought to control the pace of escalation, insisting on proportionality and plausible deniability. In doing so, it treated Ukraine not as an equal partner but as a proxy, a dependent actor in a carefully choreographed geopolitical play. Every act of support came laced with conditions, delays, and mixed messaging. The result was confusion, not deterrence.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin adapted. It learned to fight under sanctions. It rewired trade through China, Central Asia and the Middle East. It weaponized energy and disinformation. And it exploited every gap in the West’s resolve. American indecision, far from preventing escalation, became its form of complicity.

A Safe Haven for the Aggressor

Russia, facing no serious risk of retribution at home, found sanctuary in the very system it sought to dismantle. The U.S. and its allies allowed Moscow to retain its global standing, even as it committed war crimes on Ukrainian soil. It sat on UN Security Council meetings about a war it started. It attended diplomatic forums with states whose economies were fuelling its aggression.

While Russian oil continued to flow and global institutions turned a blind eye to enforcement gaps, the moral outrage of Western leaders rang hollow. The Kremlin interpreted this as weakness. And they were right to.

In shielding its interests, the West undermined the very norms it claimed to protect. And in doing so, it told other autocrats, explicitly or not, that the cost of conquest is negotiable, if not entirely avoidable.

The Trump Factor: A Self-Fulfilling Anxiety

Much of Washington’s timidity came not from Moscow but from Mar-a-Lago. The spectre of Trump haunted every policy debate, every funding decision, every delay in aid. The idea that a future administration might withdraw support or sever ties pushed the Biden team toward caution.

Rather than building a future-proof coalition for Ukrainian victory, the U.S. adopted a stopgap approach, delivering just enough to prevent collapse but never enough to secure success. In effect, the administration governed as if Trump were already back in power. This was not prudence. It was political paralysis.

Ukraine became the victim of American domestic dysfunction, caught between two timelines: one in which democracy could prevail and another in which it might be betrayed again, this time under the full weight of the Oval Office.

In trying to manage both futures, the U.S. weakened its credibility. And in the process, it failed to deliver on its most basic promise: to stand firm against tyranny.

When the West Wavers, the World Notices

The consequences of this failure extend far beyond Kyiv or Kharkiv. In the Global South, many nations watched and learned that Western support is conditional, that its principles are applied selectively, and that strategic interests will always override moral imperatives. American exceptionalism, long taken as a given in foreign policy circles, now appears to many as just another brand of power politics.

In Europe, trust has eroded. Nations like Poland, Estonia, and Finland have grown wary of relying on Washington’s word alone. The dream of a cohesive, values-driven transatlantic alliance has dimmed. And the cracks in NATO’s foundation are no longer theoretical, they are visible and growing.

Ukraine is not the only casualty. Faith in the West’s leadership is bleeding out.

What Must Come Next

The world, especially Canada and Europe, must confront its illusions head-on. Power without resolve is not power, it is posturing. Support without clarity is not support, it is manipulation. In this moment, nothing short of full strategic commitment will do. That means providing Ukraine with the tools, the trust, and the timeline it needs to win, not merely survive.

More importantly, it means rebuilding relationships that have frayed under the weight of half-promises and risk-averse policies. This war is not just Ukraine’s to fight. It is democracy’s. And if the U.S. cannot lead with conviction, then others must lead without it.

If this piece made you think, feel, or reflect, I’d be honoured if you shared it with a friend, posted it on social media, or forwarded it to someone still clinging to the illusion of American strategic omniscience. You can also support us by subscribing, leaving a comment, or buying me a coffee to keep this work alive. We’re building a space where tough questions are welcomed and honest analysis matters. Let’s keep going together.