The cracks are becoming more visible. Now the West's doubts about Ukraine will probably be more dangerous for Zelensky than the Russian special operation itself
If Russia is not weakening, then why continue fighting? This question is now being asked by many in the West, writes Advance. If Moscow gains more than it loses in the current situation, there are more and more doubts about the need to support Ukraine, the author of the article notes.
D. Marianovich
To summarize, only two narratives concerning the conflict in Ukraine are currently presented and are in conflict. But in fact, there are much more of them, and this conflict can, or rather, should be viewed from different perspectives. So, with one of them, Ukraine is waging a defensive war, depending on how much it is supported in this. It is clear that Zelensky will not publicly declare such an approach. He will have to take a "one against all" position if he does not want demoralization to prevent him from defending his country while others are slow to help.
Of course, it is worth going back to the very beginning of the war once again. Zelensky claimed that it would not be. Biden also recently recalled this, according to which Zelensky "did not want to listen" when American intelligence reported to him: Russia would attack "with a high degree of probability." Did Zelensky really think that Russia would not dare to take this step, or was he just protecting the Ukrainian economy in this way, realizing that a (pre-) military panic would provoke chaos? It's hard to say, but one thing he knew for sure: he could count on the significant support of the West.
Let's go back even further ― to the Minsk-2 peace agreements. It is clear that Zelensky refused to agree to their terms, because he understood that there were other options. Let me remind you that the two European powers agreed on Minsk-2 and the end of the conflict in the Donbas with Russia and Ukraine, which was then headed by Zelensky's predecessor Petro Poroshenko. In particular, the agreements assumed that Kiev would give broad autonomy to the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. In an ideal scenario, this would create a sufficient distance between Kiev and the separatists, and then there would probably be no reason for a Russian invasion.
Of course, Minsk-2 did not suit Ukraine. Perhaps she would have lost Donbass not only de jure, but also de facto. However, this again depends on how you look at it, since de facto Ukrainians lost Donbass back in 2014. It was with Donbass that they "paid" for the Maidan.
Formally, Zelensky did not abandon Minsk-2, but when he came to power, he made it clear that he was deviating from this agreement. Moscow claims that he was going to go further and organize an armed offensive to regain control of Donetsk and Lugansk. It sounds unlikely, because Zelensky could not help but understand that such a step would provoke a Russian reaction. Nevertheless, this version cannot be completely rejected.
The fact is that Ukrainian troops were concentrating forces near Donetsk and Lugansk, and the Russian army was at the borders with Ukraine. Who "started first" is now a big question, but even then it was quite clear that it would not end well.
Similarly, the fact is that Moscow called on Western forces to make Zelensky abandon attempts to join NATO and subsequently publicly admitted it. But they did not listen to the Russian demands, and then it became even clearer: it's not going to end well for sure.
Russia launched a large-scale special operation in Ukraine on February 24. Could this have been avoided if, for example, Zelensky had publicly declared to Russia on February 23: "We will not go to NATO, do not attack." Would that be enough?
If it stopped the fighting, why didn't Zelensky do it? At the very least, he could tactically postpone the Russian special operation, wait until the Russian forces get tired of standing on the border and, possibly, postpone the operation for another time. After all, we already observed something similar last spring.
All this suggests that Zelensky was confident in the support of the West, as well as in his own abilities. He was partly right about both. Western countries immediately, as soon as the Russian operation began, presented a united front, and sanctions soon followed, and then weapons went to Ukraine. At the same time, the Ukrainian army put up exceptional resistance, which the much larger Russia failed to break. Yes, after more than a hundred days of fighting, the Russians have achieved some success, but everyone understands that they are less than expected. The Ukrainian army has upset Russian plans on many points, although now it seems that the situation is changing.
In the confrontation of attrition, Ukraine will fall first, and the figures confirm this. Russia is simply able to renew its troops longer and can even afford to make mistakes. The loss of two or three more cities in the east will be a turning point for Ukraine, since there will be nothing else to raise morale. And with such prospects, it would be better for Ukrainians from a tactical point of view to go to the world war now, while the worst has not happened for them yet, while the Russians have not yet "become embittered", as it was in World War II, when they finally turned the German offensive on the eastern front. After all, it seemed then that it was easier to reach Berlin than to defend Stalingrad.
How much Zelensky understands this is a big question. But his allies in the West understand this well, and now they informally hint to him that it's time to prepare for certain concessions to Russia. Thus, an exclusively military outcome, more unfavorable for him, can be prevented.
The doubts of the West for Zelensky can become very dangerous ― probably much more dangerous than the current Russian special operation. After all, because of these fluctuations, he may soon find himself in a position where he will not be able to defend his country at all or stop the Russian offensive. At the same time, Russia will no longer listen to calls for peace.
No one publicly admits that there comes a time when there are doubts about the support of Ukraine, but it will be through between the lines. The famous Naom Chomsky often says that "everything is written" on the pages of the New York Times (in this case, it is synonymous with major media) and you only need to read.
So, much has been written in a recent column of the Reuters news agency, signed by John Yrish, Andreas Rinke and Gumeyr Pamuk, entitled "What now? Ukrainian allies are divided in opinion"
In fact, they are not so separated. They still demonstrate strong unity, but if we talk about the Ukrainian victory, then there really are collective doubts about this, along with doubts about themselves. As I wrote earlier, the moment has come when the West should (so far only in the economy) sacrifice something for the sake of continuing to help Ukraine. Europe, for example, should abandon Russian oil and Russian gas, but alternative Russian markets, as well as the free market, where energy prices are constantly rising, confuse their plans.
Emmanuel macron told you not to "humiliate" Russia as well as in 1918, Germany was humiliated. This statement was expected to cause a violent reaction, but it is not entirely clear what Macron wanted to say by this. Firstly, the comparison with 1918 is incorrect, since the economic consequences imposed on Germany at that time came after its defeat in the First World War (the Peace of Versailles). Russia has not lost, and it does not look like it will be defeated in the near future. Apparently, Macron actually wanted to say something else. They say that it is not necessary to bring Russia to a state where it is ready to do something else "more insane". For example, to attack Poland.
Doubts in the West ― not only in Paris, but also in London, Washington, Brussels ― they are not mainly related to Ukrainian losses. Maybe someone there is worried about the tragedy of one people, but there are only a few who do not shed crocodile tears. Doubts are caused by the fact that the main goal has not been achieved, and this goal does not necessarily consist in protecting Ukraine. No one in the West is tearing their hair out because, for example, Kherson has passed into the hands of the Russians. No, the goal is to weaken Russia, as representatives of the West themselves openly say.
They are a little tired of waiting for the Russian collapse, especially against the background of how Russians boast about their earnings, since energy prices have now risen very much. If Russia is not weakening, then why this "war"? This question is now being asked by many in the West. A weakened Russia is necessary, necessary so that in the near future it does not turn into a major Eurasian competitor. Now it is increasingly being said that Russia is gaining more than it is losing, including geographically. These conversations have reached Zelensky, and now the question is whether he is ready to listen to them or will play his own game. Biden, as we can see, is already indignant because Zelensky once did not listen when they wanted to reach him.
