Staff Reports
President Biden recently met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office to reaffirm America’s steady backing of Ukraine’s fight against the Russians. In true Biden fashion, he managed to sound both supportive and cautious—like a parent encouraging a child to ride a bike without training wheels while simultaneously holding onto the back of the seat.
Zelenskyy was in town this week, making the rounds to plead Kyiv’s case at the United Nations, before Congress, and, of course, the Oval Office. He was reportedly armed with a so-called “victory plan” that, while shrouded in secrecy, hinted at more aggressive strategies to push back against the Russian military. Apparently, the details were confidential enough that they could only be shared behind closely guarded doorways because God forbid anyone outside the White House catch wind of it.
Zelensky arrived in PA aboard US military aircraft. After that, NY and DC. Ukraine will present its “victory plan”. Biden will see it first, then all the leaders of partner countries.
— The plan will also be presented to both parties in the US Congress, Trump and Harris. pic.twitter.com/94rtGgYxSr— Katie Liane (@TheKaterPotater) September 23, 2024
Despite his efforts, including impressive displays of gratitude for the U.S.’s past assistance, Zelenskyy made it clear that he is not thrilled with the limitations placed on Ukraine’s ability to retaliate against Russian aggression. Biden fumbled around for a solution, announcing new aid packages that, although hefty at $8 billion, still left many questioning if it’s a mere band-aid on a gaping wound. His announcement was a tad late, coming only after Congress failed to extend a critical authority that would have streamlined assistance. Talk about a classic bureaucratic pivot—fashionably late to the humanitarian party.
Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris decided to throw a jab at former President Trump during the meeting, implying that he represents those who would settle for allowing Putin to keep occupied territories in Ukraine. It’s a strategy likely designed to rally the restless Democratic base, but in the realm of common sense, it brings to mind the classic question: would you negotiate with a robber over your prized possessions? Harris argues that support for Ukraine is grounded in America’s strategic interests, which sounds good in theory but leaves many wondering what those “interests” really are.
Back in Ukraine, the delicious irony continues as Zelenskyy stands on the precipice of battle while Biden’s administration moves snail-like through decision-making. With winter fast approaching and more Russian missile strikes targeting critical infrastructure, any aid that doesn’t reach the frontlines of this conflict could be rendered useless. Adding to the commotion, Trump gets ready for a chat with Zelenskyy, claiming he could end the war quickly, while the sitting administration continues cautioning against deepening involvement. It creates a narrative reminiscent of a game of political chicken—who will blink first?
As tensions escalate, it remains uncertain how U.S. politics, particularly the upcoming election, will influence the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Zelenskyy needs more than just a pat on the back and empty promises. He requires robust support that goes beyond what the Biden administration currently appears willing to offer. It’s a high-stakes game where the stakes are not just about territory but about the very principle of standing up against tyranny. And while Biden may declare victory in his diplomatic efforts, the real winners and losers will be decided on the battlefield, one missile strike at a time.
