How America’s war support strategies differ for Ukraine and Israel

America’s support for the Ukraine and Israel wars has been starkly different shaped by varying historical contexts, political alliances, and strategic imperatives. Despite both nations being key US allies, the nature of the support, public perception, and diplomatic handling of each situation have been contrasting in many ways.
Below is an analysis of how the support for each war differs, along with insights into the relationships between leaders and the geopolitical factors influence US policy.
The war in Ukraine has seen substantial US financial and military support, but always from a cautious and somewhat distanced stance. The US has consistently avoided direct military involvement, preferring to pull the strings from behind the scenes through NATO coordination and economic sanctions on Russia.
Financial and military aid: To date, the US has pledged over USD 113 billion to Ukraine, much of it in military assistance, with advanced weapons like HIMARS, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and air defence systems. However, this aid has faced hurdles in Congress, especially from the Republican-controlled House, where skepticism about indefinite support to Ukraine has grown. The question of “how long can we sustain this” has been a consistent theme on Capitol Hill.
Biden and Zelenskyy: US President Joe Biden has maintained a stable and consistent relationship with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Their relationship has been relatively straightforward, with Zelenskyy aligning closely with US requests and expectations. Zelenskyy has often framed Ukraine’s war as not just a fight for Ukrainian sovereignty but a defence of Western democratic values, a message that resonates deeply in Washington, making it easier for Biden to rally support from Europe and NATO allies.
NATO’s role and US restraint: Despite the heavy aid, the US has ensured that NATO takes the lead in supporting Ukraine, staying mindful of not provoking Russia into a wider war. The US military forces have remained largely absent, with Biden stressing that American boots will not be on Ukrainian soil. This contrasts sharply with America’s more proactive stance in the Middle East, where military assets have been visibly repositioned.
The US’s relationship with Israel, on the other hand, is far deeper, steeped in decades of close military and economic cooperation. Israel enjoys unwavering bipartisan support in the US, largely due to its geopolitical importance in the Middle East and its strong cultural, political, and economic ties with American Jews.
Bipartisan support for Israel: Unlike Ukraine, where Republican support has been more divided, the support for Israel remains largely bipartisan. American Jews play a crucial role in US politics, both as a voting bloc and through their influence in media, finance, and lobbying efforts. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, ensuring consistent support for Israel across both parties.
Biden’s complicated relationship with Netanyahu: President Biden’s relationship with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been far more complicated than his dealings with Zelenskyy. The two leaders have known each other for decades, but their political visions don’t always align. Netanyahu’s hardline policies, especially regarding settlements and the Palestinian issue, have often clashed with the more moderate Democratic approach to the Middle East. Unlike Zelenskyy, who adheres closely to US guidance, Netanyahu has shown a willingness to defy Washington, acting independently, particularly in his handling of Iran and Gaza.

Israel’s autonomy: Israel does not necessarily listen to Washington in the same way Ukraine does. For example, Netanyahu has unilaterally launched operations against Iranian targets and Hezbollah without waiting for US approval, and Israel’s security interests often supersede US diplomatic preferences. This autonomy is indicative of Israel’s unique position in US foreign policy: a close ally that Washington cannot afford to alienate, but also one that doesn’t always fall in line with its strategic interests.
One of the most significant differences in the US support for Ukraine and Israel is the nature of military involvement. In Ukraine, America has remained in the background, supplying weapons and intelligence but not committing any troops on the ground. In contrast, the US has a more direct military presence in the Middle East.
US forces in Middle East: Following the recent escalations between Israel in the region, be it with Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran, the US quickly mobilised military assets to the region, including sending aircraft carriers and deploying more troops to nearby bases. The presence of US forces in the region serves as a deterrent to Iran and Hezbollah, signaling that Washington is prepared to intervene if necessary. This kind of military posturing has been absent in the Ukraine conflict, where the US has focused on sanctions and NATO coordination rather than deploying its own forces directly.
Background role in Ukraine: The US has taken a more hands-off approach in Ukraine, avoiding actions that could provoke a direct conflict with Russia. This is largely due to the potential for escalation with a nuclear-armed state like Russia, something that isn’t as prominent in the Middle East, despite the involvement of Iran. The US strategy in Ukraine has been one of calculated restraint, ensuring support while avoiding any steps that could lead to a wider European war.
The wars in Ukraine and Israel are products of different geopolitical environments. The Ukraine conflict is often seen as a proxy war between Russia and the West, a legacy of Cold War rivalries. The US sees this as part of a broader struggle to contain Russian influence in Europe, which resonates deeply in Washington, especially among older generations of lawmakers and officials who lived through the Cold War.
Cold War dynamics in Ukraine: The US support for Ukraine is framed within the broader narrative of defending Europe from Russian aggression, harkening back to Cold War dynamics where the US sought to contain Soviet influence. This historical lens has driven much of the bipartisan support for Ukraine, though newer members of Congress, particularly on the right, have questioned the relevance of this approach in today’s world.
Middle East instability and US interests: In the Middle East, Washington’s support for Israel is driven by a combination of strategic interests and cultural ties. Israel is seen as a stabilising force in a region rife with instability, terrorism, and the influence of Iran. Unlike the Ukraine conflict, which is primarily about containing Russia, the US’s support for Israel is about maintaining a foothold in the Middle East and countering Iranian influence. It also sees Israel as a critical partner in combating terrorism, which is a more immediate concern than the broader ideological struggle with Russia.
The US support for Ukraine and Israel reflects two different paradigms of American foreign policy. In Ukraine, it is playing a careful game of balancing support for an ally while avoiding direct conflict with a nuclear power. In Israel, the US is more directly involved, willing to deploy military assets and take a more assertive stance to protect its interests in the region.
Ultimately, the differing levels of support reflect the unique historical and geopolitical contexts of each conflict. Ukraine is seen through the lens of Cold War-era containment, while Israel is viewed as a vital ally in a volatile region. As the 2024 US elections approach, these differing foreign policy priorities will continue to shape America’s role on the global stage.