 Waning support for Ukraine When President Zelensky visited the U.S. in December 2022, President Biden announced that he did not see an expiration date for U.S. support for Ukraine. “The American people are with you every step of the way” adding “And we will stay as long as it takes.” Biden’s words have been echoed by NATO’s Stoltenberg and other European leaders. But in October 2023 “as long as it takes” may be starting to sound kind of hollow, as a sort of enchanted prayer. Constantly repeated it has started to sound less and less convincing, when seeing that no end is in sight. At the UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) session in September President Biden still stuck to his position, saying “… if nations can pursue their imperial ambitions without consequences, then we put at risk everything this very institution stands for. Everything. Every victory won on the battlefield belongs to the courageous Ukrainian soldiers. But this past year, the world was tested as well, and we did not hesitate. We chose liberty. We chose sovereignty. We chose principles to which every party to the United Nations Charter is beholding. We stood with Ukraine. Like you, the United States wants this war to end on just terms, on terms we all signed up for: that you cannot seize a nation’s territory by force. The only country standing in the way of that is Russia. So, we — each of us in this body who is determined to uphold the principles and beliefs we pledge to defend as members of the United Nations — must be clear, firm, and unwavering in our resolve. Ukraine has the same rights that belong to every sovereign nation. We will stand in solidarity with Ukraine. We will stand in solidarity against Russia’s aggression. Period.” (whitehouse.gov) Period! Perhaps the aging president is sticking to his guns, or is to President Zelensky’s guns, but the crags in the solidarity Biden refers to are widening. On September 21 a group of Republican members of Congress handed a letter to the White House, vowing to go against further spending request for Ukraine, unless they get satisfactory answers to their questions. “The American people deserve to know what their money has gone to. How is the counteroffensive going? Are the Ukrainians any closer to victory than they were 6 months ago? What is our strategy, and what is the president’s exit plan? What does the administration define as victory in Ukraine? What assistance has the United States provided Ukraine under Title 10? II would be an absurd abdication of congressional responsibility to grant this request without knowing the answers to these questions. For these reasons … we oppose additional expenditure for war in Ukraine included in your request. ( https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1704836926212022346/photo/2). Biden’s request for $24 billion in continued support for Ukraine for the rest of 2023 has now been caught in the wrangling to pass a new spending bill in Congress. Support for Ukraine also seems to be waning outside Congress. A recent ABCNews/ Washington Post poll shows that 41% now think that the U.S. is doing too much to support Ukraine. In April 2022 is was only 14%. Only half of the people asked now think that the U.S. support is the right amount or is too little.  Source. ABC News, September 24 2023. What we see is stubborn President Biden and his administration sticking to “whatever it takes” line in relation to the proxy war in Ukraine, fearing the alternative. While the U.S. populace is beginning to doubt express doubt. In Europe support for Ukraine sems to be holding in the population, albeit with large difference between hawkish countries like Poland, Estonia, the UK and Denmark. A more hesitant western group comprises France, Germany, Spain and Portugal. While the sceptic group may include Hungary, Austria and perhaps Italy. Surveys from May 22 and January 23 show answers to the question “The most important thing is to stop the war as soon as possible, even it means Ukraine giving control of areas to Russia”  Source: Bruegel based on Krastev & Leonard (2023).
The Bruegel think tank is careful to point out that due to the lack of progress for the Ukraine on the battlefield “voices calling for a peace settlement, even on unfavourable terms to Ukraine, might gain traction in the public debate. In upcoming elections, this could benefit political parties less favourable to supporting Ukraine for ‘as long as it takes’.” Leading European politicians still seem to follow the U.S. lead enthusiastically. Just listen to Josep Borrell, Commission Vice-President in charge of coordinating the external action of the European Union: “Our unity and support to Ukraine is more solid than ever, and it will continue until Ukraine prevails” (X/Twitter May 13,2023). Or to von der Leyen in her State of the Union speech: We will be at Ukraine's side every step of the way – For as long as it takes.” Actually, just about the only serious opposition from a European leader comes from Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Recently though there been signs of discord between Poland and Ukraine as result of the spat about Ukrainian grain exports destabilizing the polish market. On September 20 a visibly annoyed Polish Prime Minister Mateuz Morawiecki told Polsat News: “We are no longer transferring weaponry to Ukraine, we are now arming ourselves with most modern weapons … If you want to defend yourself, you have to have something to defend with.” While the Morawiecki’s outburst may be related the upcoming parliamentary elections on October 15, they show that not all is well with Poland’s support for Ukraine. Then we have the usual elephant in the room, former president Donald Trump, and the looming 2024 presidential election. There is a fear — or hope, that Trump, if he should win, would not support Ukraine but seek an agreement with Russia. In an interview he has revealed what he intended to do: To Mr Zelensky he would say "No more, you gotta make a deal," and to Mr Putin: "If you don't make a deal, we're gonna give them a lot. We're gonna give more than they ever got. And that is it, the war will be over.” (ndtv.com). No wonder that President Zelensky on his latest visit to the Washington was anxious to speak to both the President and to Congress to try to persuade them to support a continuation of the aid for Ukraine. Senator Schumer, Democrat told that in a private meeting president Zelensky had said: “if we don’t get the aid, we will lose the war.” Zelensky was not given the hero’s welcome he received last time. House Speaker McCarthy even denied Zelensky’s request to address a joint session. Instead, he had to meet privately with leading members. Critical voices Admiral Tony Radkin, the UK Chief of Staff, argues: Ukraine is winning and Russia is losing. "That is because the aim of Russia was to subjugate Ukraine and to put it under Russia's control. That has not happened and it never will happen, and that's why Ukraine is winning." (BBC News September 10). The question is how long can Ukraine continue winning in this really weird fashion? Others seem instead to regard this strange “winning” position of Ukraine as kind of quagmire, that one must get out of. Here some views form three different groups of sceptics. Sceptical military commanders All during the proxy war against the Russian invasion and occupation, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, has never really sounded optimistic in relation to the Ukraine and its chances of forcing the Russians back. In November 2022 he said “In terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they define or what they claim is Crimea, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily. Politically, there may be a political solution where, politically, the Russians withdraw, that's possible. You want to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia right now is on its back. … So, you want to negotiate at a time when you're at your strength and your opponent is at weakness. And it's possible, maybe that there'll be a political solution. All I'm -- all I'm saying is there's a possibility for it. That's all I'm saying.” In a recent interview with the BBC, he reckoned that it was too early to say whether the counter offensive had failed. “There's still a reasonable amount of time, probably about 30 to 45 days' worth of fighting weather left, so the Ukrainians aren't done … there's battles not done... they haven't finished the fighting part of what they're trying to accomplish.” He is of cause referring to the time left before the muddy fall and winter will hamper the counter offensive While Milley still sees a weak possibility for a wider Ukrainian push, although certainly not sounding optimistic, others are decidedly pessimistic. In April 2023 Polish armed forces Chief of General Staff, Rajmund Andrzejczak, is quoted in the Military Watch Magazine with a warning that the outlook is not good: “War always was, is, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise – a matter of politics, and in its determinants has a substantial number of economic factors: finance, infrastructure issues, social issues, technology, food production and a whole set of problems that must be put into this box to understand this conflict… When I look at the conflict in Ukraine, I mainly see it through these political lenses, and unfortunately it does not look good,” he stated. This was primarily on the basis that there was “nothing” to indicate Russia would be unable to sustain its war effort, and that Western economic warfare efforts had failed to prevent this” (Military Watch Magazine). According to a Washington Post report in August U.S. intelligence does believe that the Ukraine’s counteroffensive will fail in its goal of cutting through Russian forces and reach the city of Melitopol this year. “Ukraine’s forces, which are pushing toward Melitopol from the town of Robotyne more than 50 miles away, will remain several miles outside of the city, U.S. officials said. (washingtonpost.com). Finally, we have the curious suggestion for a Ukrainian solution from the Director of the Private Office of the NATO Secretary, the Norwegian Stian Jenssen. In a public panel debate in Norway in August 2023 he argued: “I think that a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory, and get NATO membership in return, ... It is important that we discuss our way through this.” Is he airing an idea that NATO is discussing, a sending up a trial balloon to see how the idea would be received? Perhaps not. When Jens Stoltenberg met Zelensky in Kyiv on September 28, he said “all Allies have agreed that Ukraine will join NATO” and “Ukraine is now closer to NATO than ever before.” One has wonder what is going on in NATO, but it certainly looks as if the General Secretary has a more naively optimistic view than his military colleagues. But perhaps Jens Stoltenberg’s role is to act as a Biden/Blinken/Sullivan stooge. Sceptical analysts and commentators Analysts from the Rand Corporation, the well-known non-profit and non-partisan research organization, have become more and more convinced that Ukraine and West will have to prepare for a long war with the non-existing willingness on both side of the war to enter negotiations. Already in February 2023 they foresaw the present signs for a stalemate: “Based on how the Russians are digging in at this point in eastern Ukraine, through a network of defensive positions and trenches, multiple lines, deep mineTelds, I think it’s going to be really costly for the Ukrainians to [oust] them from all areas of occupation. (Dara Massicot at a RAND briefing). A RAND colleague believes that there is no signs that Putin will retreat: … he’s not going to budge, or is going to only budge at the very last minute if he’s under intense political pressure at home … given the military realities on the ground and Putin’s determination — and the Ukrainian’s determination — to keep fighting on, this doesn’t augur well.” (John Tefft, a RAND briefing). Other analysts have focused on the increasing cost of a drawn-out war for Ukraine and not the least for the U.S. “The costs for the United States and the European Union of keeping the Ukrainian state economically solvent will multiply over time as conflict inhibits investment and production; Ukrainian refugees remain unable to return; and, as a result, tax revenue and economic activity drop dramatically lower than before the war. Russia's campaign of destruction of Ukrainian critical infrastructure will create major long-term challenges for sustaining the war effort and for economic recovery and has also substantially increased Kyiv's projections for the economic support it will need from the United States and its allies.” (S. Charap and M. Priebe, The RAND Corporation). A drawn-out war will have consequences for U.S. foreign policy and military capabilities in other parts of the world. “The U.S. ability to focus on its other global priorities—particularly, competition with China—will remain constrained as long as the war is absorbing senior policymakers' time and U.S. military resources. Bilateral or multilateral interaction—let alone cooperation—with Russia on key U.S. interests is unlikely.” (S. Charap and M. Priebe, The RAND Corporation). Then there is the risk that the spiraling escalation on both sides, might lead to a Russia-NATO war, and/or the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which in itself carries the ultimate risk of an all-out nuclear war. Anatol Lieven form The Quincy Institute shows another perspective on the war in Ukraine, the opinions of Russia’s present elites: “The general elite aversion to pursuing total victory in Ukraine is however not the same thing as a willingness to accept Russian defeat – which is all that the Ukrainian and US governments are presently offering. Nobody with whom I have spoken within the Moscow elite, and very few indeed in the wider population, has said that Russia should surrender Crimea and the eastern Donbas. Unless Russian sovereignty over these territories is formally recognised by Ukraine – something that Kyiv has categorically excluded – the Russians who take this view believe that Russia must hold the additional territory it has taken since last year’s invasion, to head off any future Ukrainian attack on Crimea and the Donbas. “(The Guardian, August 30). John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and belonging to the realist school on foreign policy, is certainly not popular today for his views on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He believes that opportunities for peace may have been lost. That escalation is likely and that the risk of nuclear weapons being used is not trivial. Another academic heretic is the economist, Jeffrey Sachs. He has recently argued that Ukraine is being destroyed by U.S. arrogance. “The Ukraine War will end when the U.S. acknowledges a simple truth: NATO enlargement to Ukraine means perpetual war and Ukraine’s destruction. Ukraine’s neutrality could have avoided the war, and remains the key to peace.” From what we have seen here, it certainly looks like the analysts have come to a rather pessimistic outlook for the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine. Still, most of western leaders are still bowing, albeit often reluctantly to Ukrainian demands for further support. Unlike political voices in background who are beginning to reach a pessimistic conclusion Sceptical western politicians Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy is one of them. In an article in Le Figaro on August 16, he laid out a pessimistic view on war in Ukraine. “Without compromise, nothing will be possible and we run the risk that the situation will degenerate at any moment. This powder keg could have frightful consequences…The Ukrainians... will want to reconquer what has been unjustly taken from them. But if they can't manage it completely, the choice will be between a frozen conflict... or taking the high road out with referenda [in territories occupied by Russia since 2014] strictly overseen by the international community… any return to the way things were before is an illusion. An incontestable referendum... will be needed to solidify the current state of affairs. (Nicolas Sarkozy). In relation to ongoing pressure from Zelensky for Ukraine to join NATO, and the vague promises from the West in relation to his wish, Sarkozy argues that the Ukrainian wish must be rejected. NATO must instead affirm a willingness “to respect and take into account Russia’s historic fear of being encircled by unfriendly neighbors.” He also described as unrealistic and hypothetical suggestions that Ukraine can join the European Union in the foreseeable future, comparing this to Turkey’s hopeless decades-long efforts: “We are selling fallacious promises that will not be kept.” The EU’s black sheep in the eyes of the majority of EU leaders, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, has been steadfast in his critique of the war in Ukraine. Early on he blamed failed Western diplomacy for the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Later he has criticized EU leaders for being “too intellectual” and not looking for ways to end the fighting. “It is obvious that the military solution does not work … If you look at the reality, the numbers, the context, and the fact that NATO is not ready to send troops, it is obvious that there is no victory for the poor Ukrainians on the battlefield. This is my position. (Euronews , May 24, 2023). Orbán has also constantly refused to send weapons to Ukraine and stuck to humanitarian support. Later provoking a new outcry by saying that Donald Trump winning in 2024 is the only hope for West, arguing that a Ukrainian victory “is not just a misunderstanding. It is a lie. It’s impossible.” After the Slovakian elections with Robert Fico’s SMER party winning the election with an unexpected 22.9%, there is good chance that he will become the new leader in Slovakia, and his view of the war in Ukraine are very similar to Viktor Orbán’s: No support for any further military aid to Ukraine. There have only been weak voices talking about initiatives for Peace elsewhere. Weak voices from both the left and right end of the political spectrum. An example is the German rightwing AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) party, that has argued that a first step would be to link further support for Ukraine with a demand for Ukraine’s willingness to engage in peace initiatives. “Eine privilegierte EU-Partnerschaft für die Ukraine bei gleichzeitiger Garantie, kein Mitglied des NATO- Militärbündnisses und der EU zu werden, könnte eine Bedingung für ein Friedensabkommen sein” (afdbundestag.de) https://afdbundestag.de/friedensinitiative-ukraine/ Alas, European politicians arguing for ending the war are still in the fall of 2023 lonely voices in a political desert. Rejected by most of their colleagues in power, that still cling to President Biden’s verbal promise of standing with Ukraine as long as it takes. Although one may think their real interest is different for Biden’s, and that in end they will have been had. Either being drawn in a wider war, or that the U.S. unknown to them are secretly trying to negotiate an end to the war. In UN speech in February, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned: “The chances of further escalation and bloodshed keep growing. I fear the world is not sleepwalking into a wider war. I fear it is doing so with its eyes wide open. But the world needs peace and peace in line with the United Nations Charter and international law.” Spain’s Prime Minister Pro Sanchez earlier this year said that he would ask President Biden to listen to China’s and Brazil’s views on the war in Ukraine. Views like President Lula da Silva’s, who does not want to take sides and has said: “"I am absolutely certain that we will find a far better outcome for the world if we manage to find a way to make peace, … This war shouldn't have started, Russia shouldn't have invaded but it did. The fact is that it happened. So instead of choosing sides I want to choose a third way, the construction of peace," (AP, AFP April 2023). Lula also said “No one in the world is talking about peace except for me, it is like being alone screaming in the desert.” (France 24). He has been against encouraging Ukraine by sending weapons, and suggested that Ukraine should accept to give hope of getting back Crimea. China’s President Xi is also promoting peace talks, arguing “the more difficulties there are, the greater the need to keep space for peace. The more acute the problem is, the more important it is not to give up efforts for dialogue. China will continue to play a constructive role in promoting the political settlement of the Ukraine issue.” (Global Times, March 2023). China has even proposed a 12-point plan for peace talks, that hasn’t been received very well by Zelensky and the U.S. With China arguing that “Unfortunately, pushing for peace runs counter to the agenda of the US, which created the conditions for war by pushing for NATO expansion, despite the fact it knew this crossed red lines of Russia's security interests. Following this the US has escalated its proxy war in Ukraine over the past year with the goal of "weakening Russia." That is why, despite the interest expressed by other countries, China's peace plan has been rejected by the US.” (Global Times, March. 2023). Hard questions Fiery conviction with no substance? Do the present Western leaders know what they doing, or have they just become delirious on a cocktail of self-righteous moralism and power, stumbling along into an unforeseeable but dangerous future. Their shrill voices filled with passion for Ukraine and their hate of Russia drowning out warning voices. Have they ever taken the time to sit down and reflect upon what they are doing, or are they too busy flitting to and from summits meant to demonstrate their unison conviction? Caught in vortex of a proxy crusade? Will the West do what it takes for as long as it takes, albeit hesitantly and with delays, to help Ukraine defeat the Russian forces and get back all of what they regard as Ukrainian land, even Crimea? Have Western leaders, at first dipping very cautiously into their arsenals, lost all sense of caution, lured by their own superficial moralistic idealism and the terrible plight of Ukraine? Will the West continue to pour tanks, jets and long-range missiles into Ukraine, accepting the Ukrainian argument that more weapons will help save lives? Ignoring that nothing the West has done until now has helped to save lives, au contraire. Is Russia and the West caught in a spiralling vortex of continuous escalation? What is next, if Leopards and even fighter jets are not enough? Surreptitiously inserting Western “boots on the ground” to stiffen Ukrainian resistance? Might the lid be blown off Pandora’s box and release its curses on the whole of human kind, by simple incidents like Russian missiles landing in a NATO country, Russia shooting down a U.S. surveillance plane or something else reminding one of “Princip’s shots in Sarajevo.”? Simplistic views of the endgame What is the West hoping to achieve, a defeated Russia, perhaps even warlike dissolution? Or a Russia getting even more allied to China? Is that something Europe could want? Would that not be a real nightmare on its doorstep? Shouldn’t we at least demand some sort idea of what the West want to achieve, instead of leaving it to Zelensky to decide what the West wants? In all seriousness, will Europe really leave it to Zelensky and a vengeful Biden to decide to escalate the proxy war against Russia and decide the conditions for making peace with Russia? Or will Western decision makers (not the least the Europeans) come to their senses and realise that they have to demand something from Ukraine? Perhaps even accept something one might call a “Korean solution”? Not peace, but not War either. A divided country with a DMZ (demilitarised zone). Not the best of all worlds, but some alternatives certainly sound worse and the risk is certainly there. Is Ukraine worth it? A question that really would irk moralistic proponents of giving Ukraine everything they demand. One might even ask, is it worth it for Ukraine itself? Losing more than 100.000 dead or wounded? And be subject to enormous destruction everywhere? Is Biden promising more than he can deliver? In Kyiv he recently said: “You [President Zelensky] remind us that freedom is priceless; it’s worth fighting for as long as it takes. And that’s how long we’re going to be with you, Mr. President: for as long as it takes. “ Big words, but the U.S. might get tired in its proxy war against Russia and lose popular support? Leaving Ukraine to the fight its own hopeless fight? If U.S. support petered out, it would leave Europe with destroyed Ukraine and a belligerent Russian neighbour. Is Europe prepared for that? Losing sight of other problems? One might also ask if Western leaders are too concentrated on Ukraine, ignoring other massive problems and crises in the world at their own peril? Crises that may pop up “with a vengeance.” In the Middle East Iran seems close to having weapons grade nuclear material. Will they be allowed to get the bomb? And if they do, how will Israel and the West react to Iranian threats? Will China just continue to harass Taiwan, squeeze it with a blockade or invade, while US is occupied elsewhere? Will we see a hegemonic struggle with West against the Rest in large parts of the World? With Western ideas and values coming under threat in parts of the World observing the West concentrating on the Ukraine conflict, while ignoring deadly conflicts elsewhere. How will the West handle its own set of problems? Their internal political divisions and conflicts. In relation to an influx of migrants from other parts of the World, leading over time to a “browning” of the White West. In relation to identity politics and woke ideology, accompanied by vocal attacks on the West’s own history. The history that founded Western success and hegemony. Selected essays on the war in Ukraine: 08/02/23 “Korean solution” to the war in Ukraine? To understand the need for negotiation now it might be worthwhile to read the recent RAND Corporation Perspective “Avoiding a Long War.” https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/korean-solution-to-the-war-in-ukraine? 03/02/23 Realism disappearing down the Ukrainian maelstrom Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin on support for Ukraine: We're going to continue to dig deep. https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/realism-disappearing-down-the-ukrainian-maelstrom 27/09/22 A grim spectre rears its ugly head President Putin and President Biden are playing a passionate and dangerous game of chicken. https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/a-grim-spectre-rears-its-ugly-head 11/07/22 WHY is passion drowning out realism in Ukraine war? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/why-is-passion-drowning-out-realism-in-ukraine-war? 25/04/22 Spellbound by The Pied Piper of Kyiv’s magic Newspeak https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/april-17th-2022 11/03/22 Proxy war in Ukraine because Biden and Blinken bear a grudge? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/proxy-war-in-ukraine-because-biden-and-blinken-bear-a-grudge? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/getting-out-ukrainian-quagmire-part-two-verner-c-petersen Comments are closed.
|
