It's a change of verb that didn't go unnoticed, a semantic evolution performed by a hard-faced Joe Biden. On December 12, 2023, in a dark wood-paneled room of the White House – the Indian Treaty Room, reserved for special occasions – the American president held a press conference alongside his Ukrainian counterpart. Winter was approaching, the troops were wearing out, and Volodymyr Zelensky needed a further extension of military aid to fight Russia.

But while Biden had often assured that American support for Ukraine would continue "as long as it takes," this time he qualified his statement. Military aid to Kyiv would continue "as long as we can," he said, eyes glued to his podium. Beyond the doubts raised by his choice of words, on that day Biden made a kind of admission, according to military experts. In the face of the multiplication of major conflicts in Europe and the Middle East – regions from which Washington had previously hoped to disengage to focus on combatting Chinese expansion – the United States has reached the limits of its capacity for action.

Two days after this statement, the Biden administration faced an unprecedented situation: Congress's crushing veto of the defense spending it advocated for 2024. The White House was unable to secure the $61 billion it sought for Kyiv, nor the $14 billion it wanted for Tel Aviv, at war with Hamas. Only the last tranche of aid earmarked for Ukraine from the 2023 budget was ultimately released. While a compromise remains possible, every passing month complicates the planning of military operations for the Ukrainian and Israeli allies. It also raises doubts about the US's ability to maintain its role in resolving international crises.

Two underlying trends

This represents a crisis in American defense strategy, said Mark Cancian, an expert on the inner workings of the Pentagon and the director of research at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. A crisis that can partly be explained by the conjunction of two underlying trends in America, including the evolution of the domestic political debate and the increasingly marked disagreements over the direction of the military apparatus.

Defense issues in Congress have always divided the country into two camps. On one side are the isolationists – now mainly Republicans, who believe that the US should concern itself with protecting its territory rather than meddling in world affairs. On the other side are the interventionists who believe that the American nation's founding values impose a duty of leadership abroad. Until now, Congress was able to overcome these differences and endorse the administration's demands in military matters.

You have 85% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.