U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered a message of solidarity after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv over the weekend.

The U.S. promised hundreds of millions of dollars in new aid as well as the return of U.S. diplomats during the high-level visit to Ukraine since the war started.

What You Need To Know

  • U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv

  • The United States has promised $3 billion in aid to Ukraine in their war against Russia

  • Drones, anti-aircraft radars and other supplies will be provided to Ukraine

  • Nations that were not part of NATO are trying to join amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

LA Times columnist Doyle McManus wrote about how Russia’s invasion triggered a shift in U.S. foreign policy. He joined host Lisa McRee on "LA Times Today" to speak about what Zelenskyy asked for from the U.S. and what was promised to him.

“Zelenksyy and the Ukrainians have been asking for more of everything since the Russian invasion," said McManus. "Their big ask was for fighter jets. The United States has kind of drawn a line there, partly because they were afraid that might provoke Putin to an escalation on his side. But Zelenskyy now is basically getting almost everything else on anybody’s shopping list. Not only has the dollar figure gone up, the United States is now trying to provide more than $3 billion — billion with a ‘B’ — worth of military aid to Ukraine. Helicopters, advanced anti-aircraft radars, brand new drones, drones that crash into an enemy tank or an enemy building. All kinds of high-end stuff. By the end of that process, Zelenskyy is now saying [he is] perfectly satisfied the Americans are giving me everything [he is] asking for."

When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, there was hesitation from the West to send troops and funds to Ukraine. McManus also explained why the U.S. has changed its tactic and promised more aid to Ukraine.

“Most of what you were hearing from Joe Biden and other Western countries early on was [about] the limits. We won’t put boots on the ground, we won’t send high-end tanks, we won’t send fighter jets. We want to make sure that this thing is contained and doesn’t turn into a nuclear confrontation between Russia and the United States. But over time, things changed. No. 1, the Ukrainians did a lot better, and the Russians did a lot worse on the battlefield. No. 2, the Biden administration realized it was being more cautious than it needed to be. And No. 3, those persistent reports of Russian atrocities and attacks on civilians, which continue today, really solidified the Western political consensus not just in the United States, but in Japan, Australia, Britain and Europe. Only one side can be allowed to win this war and the other side has to lose."

The U.S. has a long policy of isolationism. In the 1930s, Congress passed laws declaring that the country would remain neutral in any foreign conflict.

McManus talked about how, and why, that policy has shifted through the years and when it comes to the current war in Ukraine.

"Just think about the last 10 years when the main job of American foreign policy has basically been to extricate us from the adventures and misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that George W. Bush began at a moment when the United States thought it could do anything. We have the unipolar moment after 9/11 that was followed by a terrible, frantic 20 years of fighting. Now, we’ve got to be more cautious. The foreign policy scholars would say we were in a period of retrenchment. Joe Biden was kind of thought of as the heir to Barack Obama, who was a retrenching president. Donald Trump wanted to bring things home and get out of NATO. So, everybody sort of thought Joe Biden was going to be cautious, too. But when the Russians invaded, they crossed a red line that I don’t think they knew it was there."

Related Stories

As Putin works to weaken NATO, countries who long declined to membership are considering joining.

"The most striking thing here is not the change in American policy but the fact that Germany, which has been an essentially pacifist country is now nearly as angry at Russia as the United States," said McManus. "Sweden, the quintessential neutral pacifist country, is now talking about joining [NATO]. Finland, a neutral country which had stayed out of NATO for 40 years to avoid angering Russia, is now desperate to join. Vladimir Putin has made a big mistake. He’s added to his list of enemies and subtracted from his list of friends."

In France, the recent presidential election could influence U.S. foreign policy and all of Europe. Incumbent Emmanuel Macron defeated far-right opponent Marine Le Pen and will serve another term. McManus explained why Le Pen’s loss is a relief for U.S. policymakers.

"Marine Le Pen is very close to the Russians. The last time she ran for president, she said basically that Vladimir Putin in Russia, Donald Trump in the United States, and Marine Le Pen in France are going to be the new model of how countries should be run. She actually took loans from a Russian bank in her earlier campaign. That was public. If Le Pen had won, it would have been not just the win of a kind of authoritarian rightist. She would have been the most pro-Putin leader in the entire West, and it would have been quite a blow. There are a lot of relieved faces in the White House today."

Watch “LA Times Today” at 7 and 10 p.m. Monday through Friday on Spectrum News 1 and the Spectrum News app.