The longer the war in Ukraine continues, the more difficult it will be for its allies to agree on the assurance of aid that will enable it to win the war. Particularly in the United States, the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans over the continuation of military aid makes it clear that Ukraine is becoming increasingly weaker on the international stage. The change in the speech of Joe Biden, President of the United States, at the meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky last December in Washington did not go unnoticed: “We will continue to supply Ukraine with weapons for as long as possible.” Until this Biden had always promised to support “as long as it takes”.
In July 2023, the G-7 countries committed to establishing bilateral security plans with Ukraine for a period of ten years. The first agreement came with the United Kingdom in January this year. The Washington Post dropped the bombshell on January 27: Biden's plan, according to his administration's sources, includes a level of aid to Ukraine that will allow it to stop Russian advances, but excludes the possibility of 18% of Ukrainian territory in to win back their hands the Kremlin.
There have also been reports of this from Germany. Christoph Heusgen is director of the Munich Security Conference, a reference forum between governments to debate military conflicts. Heusgen was a former German ambassador to the United Nations and advisor to Chancellor Angela Merkel. The diplomat explained on ARD television on January 31 that the end of the conflict would inevitably lead to a situation similar to the 2015 Minsk agreements, which saw a ceasefire between Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas region (in the east). was agreed ). “We already have to think about how we can put an end to this, we have to reach a situation like in 2015, when Vladimir Putin recognized Petro Poroshenko as President of Ukraine,” said Heusgen, adding: “That’s what Putin was saying.” The Government doesn't want to make peace. That has to change, we have to accept Zelensky and him, we have to know what price he is willing to pay, like in Minsk. “I see no other alternative.”
American television network NBC reported last November that American and European diplomats at a meeting of defense ministries asked their Ukrainian counterparts “what they could give up to reach a peace agreement with Russia.” Sources consulted by NBC said the discussion was particularly “delicate.”
Zelensky has not moved one iota from his so-called peace formula: the end of the war is only possible if Moscow withdraws its troops from Ukraine and returns all occupied territories. The official position of allied governments is that they will support the conditions that Ukraine demands for negotiations with Moscow. “We cannot allow Russia to win,” French President Emmanuel Macron said on December 20: “We must give Ukraine the support that allows it to negotiate peace under the best conditions.” He also acknowledged , that “there are European countries that may begin to have doubts”. Polish President Andrzej Duda said on Channel Zero television on Friday that it was not clear to him whether the Crimean peninsula could come back under Ukraine's control, but expressed confidence that the Donbass provinces would be liberated.
U.S. President Joe Biden and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky enter a room in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building on December 12 in Washington. Chip Somodevilla (Getty Images)
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.
Subscribe to
Ukraine's problem is that, as Zelensky himself reiterated in January this year, it never received enough support to win the war, only resisted. The Russian defense budget for 2024 is more than three times higher than that of Ukraine, with the latter having the best forecasts for the transfer of European and American funds. The commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valeri Zaluzhni, published an essay on CNN on Thursday in which he argued that the West neither has enough resources nor is considering providing the necessary help to push back the invading forces. The alternative is to develop a new strategy of maximum efficiency with the available technological resources, particularly taking advantage of the use of drones: “We must expect a reduction in military support from key allies caught up in their own political tensions.” “Our partners’ arsenals of missiles, air defense and artillery ammunition are becoming increasingly depleted.”
“The danger of stopping or reducing aid to Ukraine will only increase in the future,” Oleksandr Daniliuk, a former adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and the Armed Forces leadership, wrote on January 24. Daniliuk published an article for RUSI, one of the main defense studies institutes in the UK, in which he warned against the very voices that suggest that the time for negotiations with Russia is approaching: “Any attempt to reach a deal.” [la guerra] “With a peace treaty with Russia under which Ukraine could survive despite the loss of territory and sovereignty, it would be another Minsk agreement that would give Putin a strategic break to prepare for new aggression.”
Scientists support negotiations
The weekly newspaper Der Spiegel published last December that the head of the German Chancellery, Wolfgang Schmidt, had in a meeting given an example of the strategy of following the suggestions of the American academic Samuel Charap, a researcher at the RAND think tank. Charap defends that the solution to the conflict inevitably lies in assuming that Ukraine will not be able to recover all its territory and that the war must end as quickly as possible, otherwise there is a risk of war escalation with direct The influence of NATO countries is increasing.
Charap is not the only one to take similar positions from the academic world. Anthony King, director of the Institute for Strategic and Security Studies at the University of Exeter (UK), published in the Moscow Times newspaper on January 29 that the best position for Ukraine is “an aggressive defense strategy.” “Russia could keep the land it illegally invaded, but the price of a new attack would be catastrophic. “Ukraine must secure the land it now owns and make it impossible for Russia to keep it,” he said.
“Ukraine has the right to the full reintegration of its territories, which would be desirable in an ideal world, but is that a realistic strategy for 2024?” asks King, to which he himself replies: “That seems unlikely.” “A maximalist Ukrainian Strategy could weaken Western support rather than strengthening it.”
Korea as a reference
Stephen Kotkin, a professor at Stanford University and one of the most renowned historians of the history of Russia and the countries that formed its empire, has argued that the best option for Ukraine is to at least temporarily abandon the occupied territories. Kotkin's thesis is that “the time to win the war” is over and now “peace must be won.” The closest historical precedent, according to Kotkin, would be that of the Korean peninsula, with one part, South Korea, rich and with a model of liberal democracy that shows the isolation of the northern part. Former NATO Commander-in-Chief James Stavridis referred to exactly this in an interview on January 28th. This American admiral, according to The Hill, pointed out that the ideal time for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will come after the US presidential elections in November 2024. Stavridis noted that, in his opinion, everything indicates that the conflict will end with division of Ukraine like in Korea.
But there is another crucial question, namely whether Russia is ready to negotiate. Kremlin sources told the New York Times last December and Bloomberg in January this year that Putin had communicated to the White House through unofficial channels his interest in a peace agreement and even in accepting Ukraine's membership in NATO. The White House has ruled out that Moscow is actually interested in opening a negotiation process. In a short essay published in January, Norwegian reserve general Arne Bard Dalhaug summarized the conclusion of most defense analysts: that Russia controls the war, sees the West as weakened and therefore has no incentive to back down. “The Kremlin sees no reason to end the war,” emphasizes Bard Dalhaug. “Western doubts convince Putin that NATO does not have enough energy to take part in the war like Russia.”
Follow all international information on Facebook and Xor in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_