Follow us on social

President Joe Biden

Lame duck Biden goes for broke on Ukraine aid

Administration poised to send $725M in weapons from depleting US stockpiles

Analysis | QiOSK

On its way out, the lame duck Biden administration is going for broke, maybe literally, on aid for Ukraine.

According to AP reporting and a State Department statement, the U.S. plans to send Ukraine another $725 million worth of military assistance, including HIMARs and Stinger missiles, and more anti-personnel landmines, among other munitions.

The assistance, part of over the $7 billion Congress authorized as part of an aid package in April, follows recent and controversial Biden administration decisions to allow the use of long-range missile systems inside Russia, and the use of anti-personnel landmines on the battlefield in Ukraine. The weapons will come from already depleting U.S. stockpiles.

With time ticking, Biden officials have taken to the media to make their case for arming Ukraine until the last day of the administration. “We are going to do everything in our power for these 50 days to get Ukraine all the tools we possibly can to strengthen their position on the battlefield,” White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told ABC News on Sunday.

“President Biden directed me to oversee a massive surge in the military equipment that we are delivering to Ukraine so that we have spent every dollar that Congress has appropriated to us by the time that President Biden leaves office,” Sullivan explained.

But public opinion appears to be running in the opposite direction.

According to a September Institute of Global Affairs (IGA) survey, 66% of Americans support a U.S./NATO push towards negotiation settlements in Ukraine. A recent Gallup poll found 52% of Ukrainians preferred a negotiated peace over continued fighting. And signaling a possible diplomatic shift in kind, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Ukraine could support ceding territory to Russia — in exchange for NATO membership.

In tandem with its aid efforts, the Biden administration is simultaneously pressuring Ukraine to lower its conscription age to 18. Diplomatic hopes aside, Ukrainians will continue fighting if the outgoing administration has its way.


Top Image Credit: President Joe Biden delivers remarks about the situation in Ukraine, Friday, February 18, 2022, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)
Analysis | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.