Ukrainian leaders are once again grappling with a critical decision looming across the ocean in Washington, one that could determine their nation’s future as much as any battle fought on the front lines. In recent conversations with them, a mix of concern, exhaustion, and determination was evident. The spring and summer brought successes — a bold incursion into Russia and significant advancements in drone and robotic warfare that helped mitigate Russia’s overwhelming manpower and weaponry advantage. Yet, the human toll is immense; in Kyiv, photographs of fallen soldiers line the streets, while Russia intensifies its bombing campaigns, targeting civilian infrastructure and raising fears that this winter could prove to be the hardest yet.
This weighs heavily on Washington’s shoulders. In the weeks ahead, President Joe Biden faces a momentous choice: Should he allow Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles to strike deeper into Russian territory? This request, just the latest in a series of escalatory asks from Kyiv, has the potential to mark a turning point in America’s involvement in the conflict.
The Ukrainians are making a fair case: Russia is waging war from its own soil, launching bombers and missiles into Ukraine, and Kyiv needs every tool at its disposal to defend itself. The ask isn’t dramatically different from previous requests for American military support, such as advanced Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, or Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs). Yet, each time, President Putin has issued dire warnings, such as his recent threat that any Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil would be considered an act of war against NATO.
Despite these warnings, Biden’s administration has consistently greenlit these requests after careful deliberation, and each time, the feared escalation has not materialized. But this time feels different. With the U.S. presidential election just 47 days away, Biden’s decisions hold more weight than ever — both strategically and politically. Like any outgoing president, Biden is keenly aware of his legacy, and this moment may be one of the defining decisions of his second term.
During a recent gathering in Kyiv, Ukrainian leaders emphasized both the military and moral arguments. They need the ability to strike back against Russia’s missile and drone attacks launched from across the border. Additionally, expanding their strike capabilities is a means to make Russia rethink its own aggressive actions. Already, Ukraine has used Western-supplied weapons to successfully push back Russian forces from Crimea, which remains a contested region, and Kyiv continues to develop its own missile technologies.
Despite these discussions, Ukrainian leaders hoped that Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit would lead to a resolution, but he deferred the decision to Biden. As President Biden prepares to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the U.N. General Assembly next week, Ukrainian officials are growing increasingly frustrated with the delays, though they are hiding it better than before. Zelenskyy, while diplomatically coy, made his position clear: “Putin treats the delays as permission to do what he wants. We have to make it more difficult for him. It’s too easy.”
Zelenskyy is expected to present a four-point plan to Biden aimed at ending the war, which he previously shared with Blinken in private. Despite months of discussing potential negotiations, the reality remains that Russia, under Putin’s leadership, is unlikely to agree to terms Ukraine could accept. Nevertheless, Ukraine’s stance is clear — they remain open to talks while also seeking an advantage on the battlefield.
For Biden, the risks of escalation that were once dominated by the fear of nuclear war are no longer the central concern. Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling has been largely curbed by pressure from China, which urged Putin to keep the threat of nuclear warfare in check. Today, the concern shifts toward the potential for Russia to cause harm in the Middle East by arming groups like the Houthis, but that’s hardly a new threat. Russia has framed its war in Ukraine as a confrontation with the entire West, not just Ukraine.
Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, Kyrylo Budanov, highlighted this shift in dynamics: “We have a standard conventional war with all kinds of conventional weapons used. How can Putin help in the Middle East? Everything they have in Russia is delivered here.” The current strain on Russia’s military capabilities leaves little room for further international interference, underscoring the weakened state of Putin’s forces.
Despite Ukraine’s tactical gains — such as the surprise occupation of Russian territory near Kursk and the disruption of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet — they are facing setbacks in the eastern Donbas region. Ukraine’s military needs a morale boost, and expanding missile use could be key to shifting the momentum in their favor.
As Biden approaches this pivotal moment, the immediate political stakes are higher than ever. Former President Donald Trump, who once ran on a platform of ending American military involvement overseas, now seeks to capitalize on Biden’s handling of Ukraine, blaming him for the conflict’s escalation. Trump has even promised to end the war on his first day in office — an ambitious claim that would face significant legal and logistical obstacles. However, this puts added pressure on Biden, who may choose to wait until after Election Day to approve any major decisions related to missile strikes, avoiding the perception of escalation in the heat of the campaign.
One possible compromise could be for the U.S. to grant approval for all targets in Ukraine while excluding sensitive sites such as Russian oil refineries or even Moscow itself. But these concessions are secondary. The key question remains: What does victory for Ukraine look like? Is that even something the U.S. is committed to?
At the start of the conflict, Biden was clear in his support for Ukraine “as long as it takes,” without articulating what victory would look like beyond preventing Ukraine’s collapse. But with each step forward, the cost of inaction grows. If Ukraine is to achieve anything beyond simply surviving, it will need stronger and more decisive support from the U.S.
The situation is not without precedent. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush’s visit to Kyiv to discourage Ukrainian independence became infamous as the “Chicken Kiev” speech. His warnings about the dangers of Ukrainian nationalism were met with overwhelming resistance from the Ukrainian people, who soon voted for independence. The contrast between Bush’s weak-willed response and the fortitude of Ukrainians in securing their independence is a lesson not lost on today’s Ukrainian leaders.
America’s actions in Ukraine reverberate globally. Allies and adversaries are watching closely. Biden’s presidency has already been marked by the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, which undermined U.S. credibility and weakened its deterrence globally. The decision on Ukraine could define his legacy — the stakes are monumental.
For Ukraine, this is about more than just surviving. They want victory. And with the U.S. poised to make a historic decision, the message is clear: If Biden doesn’t fully back Ukraine, his presidency could face its own “Chicken Kiev” moment. The choice is his to make
