In the aftermath of Russia’s military attack on Ukraine, the Foreign Policy magazine, in an analysis conducted by a group of leading international relations thinkers, while pointing out differences of views on U.S. objectives in supporting Ukraine, most agreed on one thing: The war marks the end of an era after the Cold War and the return of the intensification of superpower competition in Europe and the Pacific Ocean. With this background, it seems that the mid-term interests and strategic and long-term interests of the United States can be drawn as follows:

Mid-term objectives

In addition to assuming primary responsibility for arming, training and advising Ukraine’s military forces, the United States also announced in February the deployment of 20,000 additional American troops in Europe. Because from the point of view of the US administration, stability in Europe and Asia increases Washington’s ability to balance local power and promotes regional order. Therefore, by helping and empowering its friends and allies in Ukraine, Europe, and even in Asia, the United States intends to encourage them to assume more military responsibility and ensure the security of their regions. At the same time, other institutions, including the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, have not been able to respond properly to the Russian invasion and security threats to Europe. In this situation, the United States has provided the main part of the weapons to Ukraine, specifically by sending advanced air defense systems, allowing Ukraine to push back the Russian advance at least in some places. The Americans are also in control of the Ukrainian negotiating team with Russia for the realization of a ceasefire.

Nevertheless, continuation of military and spiritual aid from the US and the West makes the hope for any possible agreement smaller. John Joseph Mearsheimer, an American political scientist and the founder of the theory of offensive realism, said in an interview that his view has been for a long time that this crisis, which has now become a real war, is all related to the efforts of the West to turn Ukraine into a bastion of the West on Russia’s borders. For this reason, it can be said that America is ready to support Ukraine at any cost in order to somehow prevent Russia from advancing towards Europe and its allies.

US long-term objectives

For US leaders, the Ukraine war has underscored Washington’s essential leadership role as a guarantor of the security of the liberal democratic world and brought home to its allies in NATO and beyond it the reality that they can only protect themselves under the umbrella of US command. Indeed, after NATO’s hard withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States focused its main mission on containing China and Russia. But in the new situation, one of the main differences is that NATO will be more aligned with the leadership of the United States to confront China and Russia as the main rivals of the Western bloc. Both Russia and China have called for a new post-Western, post-Cold War order in which the United States can no longer set the agenda. The great strategic challenge for the United States is to ensure that the post-Cold War world actually maintains rules, including rules designed to prevent large-scale armed conflict.

The United States wants to maintain and expand the central role of its power in maintaining the favorable balance of power in Asia and Europe as well, where it faces Russia and China at the same time. If preventing the emergence of a rival hegemon in a vital strategic region remains a fundamental principle of the US grand strategy, turning to Asia will continue regardless of what happens in Ukraine. But among the proposed solutions, we can mention the design of policies for subversion.

To the extent that Bolton clearly declares in an article that ‘without regime change in Russia, there is no long-term prospect for peace and stability in Europe.

Also, in terms of energy security, Washington intends to present itself as one of the main alternatives to Russian oil and gas while pursuing its domestic fossil fuel phase-out program.

But it seems that until the Europeans fail to take more responsibility for their own security, Washington will not have enough capacity to provide as much military aid and weapons as before for its European partners in possible future conflicts, taking into account the challenge of China and Russia and the emergence of regional powers. It is currently unclear what a real strategic defeat for Russia would actually look like from Washington’s perspective, or what kind of diplomatic settlement the United States might eventually encourage the Ukrainians to accept.

What seems obvious is that the US officials argue that Russia will become weaker after the (long) war, especially because of global sanctions and export controls that will continue to weaken the country’s economy, which can be associated with Russia’s international isolation, public dissatisfaction following continuation of macroeconomic problems, and Russia surrounded by NATO.

According to what was said, it seems that the long-term objective of the United States for the continuation of the war in Ukraine is to further weaken Russia as one of the main competitors of that country in the world. In fact, the war in Ukraine has provided the suitable ground for the US and its allies to put Moscow in a weak position with harsh measures, including sanctions.