Ukrainian Soldiers Reflect On Biden’s Legacy
This Article contains exclusive interviews with several Ukrainian soldiers, highlighting the approaches of both the Trump and Biden presidencies.
Europe was caught off guard when the Trump administration announced it would no longer serve as the continent’s primary security guarantor. At the same time, the U.S. declared it “unrealistic” for Ukraine to reclaim its pre-2014 borders and downplayed the country’s NATO aspirations.
Is this a shock? Or was Trump merely stating more explicitly what Biden’s policies had already signaled?
Speaking at a defense summit in Brussels, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that European nations must shoulder the “overwhelming” share of aid to Ukraine as the U.S. scales back its support. He dismissed the possibility of Ukraine regaining its lost territory and signaled an official departure from previous U.S. policy under the Biden administration.
His remarks, delivered as Trump and Putin agreed to begin negotiations, showcased a major policy shift, one that has drawn sharp reactions from both Ukraine and Europe.
Hegseth’s comments removed the strategic ambiguity that Biden’s administration had carefully maintained regarding potential U.S. intervention in Europe. Yet, despite this rhetorical shift, Trump’s approach to Ukraine remains largely aligned with Biden’s unofficial policy: limiting support to prevent Ukraine’s collapse but not ensuring its victory.
Biden’s Dominos, Trump’s Push
Retired Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy to the conflict, criticized Biden’s strategy of pledging aid to Ukraine “as long as it takes, as much as it takes” without leveraging broader national power, particularly sanctions, to pressure Moscow.
“That is not a strategy, it’s a bumper sticker,” Kellogg said, arguing that Biden’s policy lacked a clear endgame.
Biden only imposed key sanctions against Russia’s shadow fleet in the final days of his presidency, measures that are now proving effective. However, why did he wait years to target Russia’s oil revenues, its primary source of war funding?
Bloomberg recently reported that ninety-four out of 154 sanctioned tankers are now idle, disrupting Moscow’s crude exports and forcing costly adjustments. Meanwhile, major buyers like India, China, and Turkey are backing away from sanctioned shipments, further complicating Russia’s energy trade and tightening its revenue streams.
Taras Kuzio, a political science professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, pointed out that Biden’s approach allowed Ukraine to survive but not to win. He noted that while the Biden administration provided Ukraine with enough military aid to prevent its defeat, it never supplied the level of support needed for a decisive victory. “The Trump team agrees with this approach but has been more transparent in admitting it,” he said.
Yaroslav Trofimov, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, highlighted the broader context of U.S. policy on Ukraine while also critiquing Europe’s approach to defense spending.
“For all the hand-wringing about what Trump will and won’t do with Ukraine, let’s all take a deep breath and remember that three years ago the Biden White House closed the embassy in Kyiv, refused to provide any meaningful weapons, and essentially gave up Ukraine for dead,” Trofimov wrote on X. He further pointed to Europe’s lagging defense commitments, noting, “Maybe the rest of Europe could do what Poland already does and spend four percent of their GDP on defense. It’s not like all this is coming as a surprise.”
The United States has never genuinely considered Ukraine as a future NATO member and has never truly wanted the country in the alliance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated recently at the Munich Security Conference.
“The U.S. never saw us in NATO. They just spoke about it, but they didn’t want us in NATO. I never heard that we will be in NATO, never. So, it’s not a question for Trump; it’s a question of U.S. policy.”
The People
This failure to act decisively resonates deeply with Ukrainian soldiers on the frontlines, who see the consequences firsthand. Many point to 2022 as a missed opportunity, when, instead of delivering decisive aid, Biden hesitated, seemingly paralyzed by Russian threats.
The following interviews with Ukrainian soldiers were conducted by David Kirichenko in February 2025.
Dmytro (“Liber”), from the 413th Separate Battalion of Unmanned Systems, argued that the U.S. had ample opportunities to help Ukraine secure victory but failed to act decisively. “Biden’s legacy is tough for Ukraine,” he said. “During his term from 2022 to 2024, Ukraine had numerous opportunities, and the U.S. had the resources to help defeat Russia. Unlike the EU, which lacked resources at the time, the U.S. could have done much more.”
The slow pace of military assistance, he argued, led to unnecessary losses. “F-16s arrived too little, too late. The same goes for Abrams tanks.”
“This failure cost many Ukrainian civilian lives,” said Dmytro, reflecting a sentiment of frustration shared by many on the battlefield.
Ihor (“Rogue”) from the 23rd Mechanized Brigade, while agreeing with some of these concerns, offered a more measured perspective, acknowledging Biden’s contributions alongside the delays. “Biden has helped a lot, but most of the aid and approvals came too late. If they had been provided on time, I believe the front line would look very different. That said, overall, I’m very grateful to him—he has made a significant contribution to our defense.”
Others were more cynical about the long-term implications of U.S. promises. Olexa (“Lexus”) from the 1st Presidential Brigade of the National Guard of Ukraine reflected on the deeper consequences of Biden’s approach.
“I think Biden did far less than he could have, but at least I knew we had an ally. However, now we are seeing that a murderer like Putin can go unpunished.”
Despite the uncertainty, he remains committed to Ukraine’s fight. “I don’t know what the future holds, but I will keep fighting for the values of freedom—not for $500 billion in resources,” Olexa added.
As Ukraine prepares to enter its fourth year of war, Biden’s legacy remains mixed. While his administration prevented Ukraine’s outright collapse, many on the battlefield believe he failed to secure victory when the opportunity was there. As a result, both Ukraine and Europe will end up paying a far greater price in the long run, one that could have been avoided with larger, upfront investments in Ukraine’s military capabilities at the start of the war to ensure victory.
Now, with Trump’s team taking a somewhat similar, though more explicit, approach as Biden did, Ukraine is left in a precarious position, forced to navigate an increasingly uncertain future as talks commence between Russia and the U.S. without Ukraine’s involvement.
David Kirichenko is a freelance journalist and an Associate Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. He can be found on X/Twitter @DVKirichenko.
Image Credit: Shutterstock.