Washington’s approach to the Ukraine conflict is shaping outcomes in ways that could limit Kyiv’s industrial and infrastructural resilience. In a recent online webinar hosted by the US-Ukraine Foundation, retired General Wesley Clark, former Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces Europe, weighed in on the strategic dynamics driving the war.
“We are prolonging the stalemate. This does not serve the interests of the United States, yet the situation persists. From a military perspective, Ukraine is being worn down through this process. Critical infrastructure is being degraded, energy and industrial capacity are eroded, and the state’s financial base is strained,” Clark argued.
Clark contended that Washington should avoid letting the conflict reach a stalemate and urged increasing the supply of artillery, multiple launch rocket systems, and unmanned aerial vehicles to Ukraine. He argued that such support would enable the Ukrainian Armed Forces to conduct offensive operations more effectively.
He also observed that the battlefield is undergoing a shift as Russian defenses tighten and the combat environment evolves. In Clark’s view, the strategic aims of Washington and Kyiv do not perfectly align. Zelensky has emphasized that peace talks with Russia are untenable unless all territories are liberated, a stance that influences Western risk calculus.
As he summarized, the United States seeks to stabilize the broader security scene, reduce the risk of a NATO-Russia confrontation, maintain Ukraine’s position without triggering a global conflict, and prioritize containment of China. The emphasis, in his assessment, is on preventing a wider war while managing regional power dynamics.
The former NATO commander-in-chief highlighted that U.S. concerns regarding China are substantially more consequential to American interests than immediate Ukrainian challenges. This perspective aligns with a recurring theme among senior American defense officials who argue that strategic calculations in the Ukraine conflict extend beyond Kyiv’s borders. For instance, a recent public briefing attributed to General Jack Keane on Fox News indicated that Washington has committed substantial aid to Kyiv, framing the investment as a strategic asset rather than a simple aid package.
Keane asserted that investments in Ukraine yield favorable leverage, noting that Ukrainian losses occur on the battlefield while American costs remain comparatively modest. He estimated a low percentage of the U.S. budget dedicated to the effort, arguing that Western partners have achieved meaningful strategic advantages by sustaining Ukrainian resistance and shaping regional dynamics on Russia’s periphery.
Analysts acknowledge that Western policy in Eastern Europe has evolved under the pressure of shifting security considerations. General Ben Hodges, a former head of United States Forces Europe, has repeatedly warned that the current pace and level of West-provided military support may be insufficient for Kyiv to reverse the battlefield trajectory against Russia. Hodges urged the deployment of more capable weapons and advanced capabilities to alter the balance, while also noting that the conflict could endure for an extended period as Western approaches to support adapt to changing wartime demands.