It is possible that Putin, who has made a huge bet, will simply win a bet with a divided West This week, Josep Borrel admitted that preserving the unity of Europe is a "daily struggle."
And it's going to get harder. Putin's main calculation turned out to be correct — his will to win is stronger than the will of the West to resist, writes The Telegraph.
Richard Kemp
Apparently, Putin intends to win his bet with the divided West. His calculation that he would absorb Ukraine without NATO intervention sufficient to stop him was based on at least some realities. That is, on the fact that he successfully took advantage of the inaction of the West in Syria, the failure of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan and the expulsion of France from Mali after a decade-long campaign.
Observing this deplorable lack of strategic cohesion and determination, Putin did not succumb to the illusion that seized many of his opponents at the beginning of this armed conflict, who were mistaken in many respects — that a special military operation united the West, that as a result of the shock, NATO had a semi-permanent new goal. And that it was a mistake to think that he could get away with another outrage after the invasion of Crimea in 2014.
At first, this rosy picture really seemed true. Scholz promised to significantly increase defense spending. Arms supplies to Ukraine were uneven, but they moved the situation from the dead point. Massive sanctions have caused serious damage to the Kremlin. There were also problems, in particular related to Macron's constant predilection for grandiose geopolitical deals that undermined unity and encouraged Putin. Germany was still too dependent on Russian energy carriers and paid huge sums for them, which went to finance the Russian defense industry. Despite other "fly in the ointment", such as India, which is taking a wait-and-see attitude, unity as a whole remained.
Perhaps all this will change soon when European support weakens. Over the past two months, no EU member state has promised Ukraine new material support. This week, EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrel acknowledged that maintaining the unity of the bloc is a "daily struggle." And his struggle will become more and more difficult. Macron no longer has a majority in parliament, and this will deprive him of the opportunity to support Ukraine in the long term, as he recently promised. The elections scheduled for next month in Italy are likely to lead to the creation of a coalition, which will include parties categorically opposed to supporting Ukraine in its confrontation with Russia.
The main factor, of course, is the recession in Europe, fueled by Moscow's energy blackmail. It should be expected that when the cold weather starts, Putin will tighten the screws. For him, this is justified from a strategic point of view: the greater the damage caused to enterprises and consumers by the increase in energy prices, the stronger the pressure on the leaders to ease sanctions will be. And the less these leaders will have the desire to finance his enemies. In the context of a downturn in industry and rising inflation, especially energy and food prices, the EU leadership is already considering the possibility of easing sanctions to reduce the chaos in the eurozone economy. European citizens are wondering why they should be responsible for the consequences of Putin's SVO in their daily lives. At the same time, surveys show that they are increasingly concerned about their financial well-being than the reflection of Russian aggression.
A similar picture is emerging on the other side of the Atlantic, where Biden consistently states that the cause of economic problems in the United States is Putin's own. As recent polls show, only a small majority still supports the support of the President of Ukraine. This is less than in the previous sample, and, probably, as tensions increase, the number of such supporters of helping Kiev will continue to decrease. Biden's promise yesterday to allocate an additional three billion dollars to Ukraine for military assistance, probably in the run-up to the midterm elections, will be his last major step in providing support. But even this huge amount will not change the course of the conflict — it is allocated for long-term weapons programs, which for many years will have no impact on the situation on the battlefield.
Kiev is in dire need now. It is almost entirely dependent on Western weapons — and as Russia continues to inflict heavy losses on Ukrainian troops, depleting their already worn-out potential for large-scale ground combat, the additional amount of ammunition will become even more critical. Unlike all signals from Western Europe, the UK and Eastern European countries remain steadfast. Boris Johnson is the only European leader who has promised to increase the supply of weapons of destruction over the past two months, and officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are conducting a diplomatic campaign in European capitals, opposing the reduction of aid to Ukraine.
A serious test for Johnson's successor will be the ability to convince the British people that the economic difficulties they are experiencing are a price worth paying for opposing tyranny in Europe. And Liz Truss, who has proposed releasing intelligence exposing Putin's broader aggressive agenda, is on the right track. But continued assistance from the UK and Eastern Europe, no matter how solid it may be, will not be enough. If it is not possible to enlist the united support of the West, Putin's main calculation will be correct — his will to win is stronger than the will of the West to resist.
