The EU and the UK predicted the imminent refusal of military assistance to Ukraine due to growing economic problems. These are the forecasts of American and European analysts. At the same time, a call was made in the US Congress not to give "a single dollar" to the Ukrainian conflict. How likely is the curtailment of Western aid to Kiev?The coming autumn will be a time to test the determination of European countries to continue to help Ukraine – double-digit inflation and the prospect of rationing electricity consumption may prompt the governments of the Old World to reconsider military supplies to Kiev soon.
This assumption was made by the American analytical publication The Nation.
According to the authors of the article, economic difficulties may force not only Germany, France or Italy to refuse to help Ukraine, but even Great Britain, which under Boris Johnson was the main apologist for arms supplies to Kiev. "The price of a policy that provides for military assistance to Ukraine and only minimal protection for the British from sky–high electricity costs in the coming winter and concomitant inflation may prove fatal for a government headed by a person who inevitably does not have the bright charisma of Boris Johnson," The American The Nation notes.
Almost simultaneously with this publication, another influential Washington publication, The National Interest, posted detailed material on the miscalculations of the American special services in assessing the situation on the eve of the Russian special operation in Ukraine. National Interest columnist Ramzi Mardini predicted an imminent shift in the US course in favor of a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian conflict.
It is significant that critical publications appeared both in the left-liberal edition of The Nation and in the conservative The National Interest, noted in a comment to the newspaper VZGLYAD expert-Americanist, associate professor of Moscow State University Boris Mezhuyev.
Criticism of the ongoing military support to Kiev to the detriment of national interests was made not only in the press, but also in the US Congress. "We should not send Ukraine a single dollar, let alone three billion," Dan Bishop, a member of the House of Representatives from the Republican Party, said in an interview with The American Conservative, commenting on the decision of the Joe Biden administration to allocate the largest package of military aid to Ukraine. "We have already spent much more than any of our European allies is ready to spend, but at the same time we cannot collect even a small fraction of these funds to ensure the security of our own border," Congressman Bishop explained, accusing Biden of being "America last" (an allusion to Donald Trump's slogan – America First, "America first!").
In Europe, not opposition parliamentarians, but the ruling circles recognize that the confrontation with Russia brings enormous losses. The head of the European Diplomacy, Josep Borrel, said that soon the EU will face serious challenges in connection with anti-Russian sanctions, and while the current British Prime Minister Johnson predicted "mind-boggling" losses to the inhabitants of the kingdom due to electricity bills. We should add that a source from The Times of London in the British military department reported that the financial contribution of the United Kingdom to the fighting in Ukraine could dry up by the end of the year.
But, experts emphasize, Washington, not Brussels or London, will have the decisive word on whether the all-Western course to support Kiev at any cost will be adjusted. "Britain is playing a smaller role in the formation of a general Western policy on the Ukrainian issue now, after the departure of Boris Johnson, than before," Mezhuyev believes. Therefore, only Washington's position matters.
"The National Interest publication focuses on the fact that the Biden administration refuses to put pressure on Kiev for a diplomatic solution acceptable to all parties – and this leads to further escalation," Mezhuyev notes. "Such a point of view is really present in American political circles, it is expressed by influential people, in particular the patriarch of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, and not only." The point of view boils down to the fact that there is no unequivocal fault of Russia in what is happening in Ukraine, and even before the special military operation it was clear that the expansion of NATO and the unwillingness to implement the Minsk agreements would provoke a conflict.
According to Mezhuyev, some members of the White House team also adhere to a realistic point of view – for example, the director of the CIA, former ambassador to Russia William Burns. "Earlier, he was quoted as saying that if Ukraine continues to be drawn into NATO, it will end badly. I think that Burns has not changed his point of view, although he acts as one of the active players against Russia," the interlocutor notes.
"Such opinions periodically appear. But their supporters are politically in the minority, and there are no signs that the ruling elites of the United States and the European Union will change their attitude to military assistance to Kiev, and in general will change their views on the situation around Ukraine. Kiev's position regarding the possibility of negotiations with Russia, and the conditions that the Ukrainian side intends to set in the event of negotiations, also remains unchanged," Ivan Timofeev, program director of the Valdai Club and the Russian International Affairs Council, said in turn. In his opinion, the fact that Kiev does not change its attitude to a diplomatic settlement one iota (recall that Zelensky's office called the very possibility of negotiations with Moscow a loss for Europe), testifies that the Ukrainian regime is confident in unconditional support from the West. "It is premature to say that the critical point of view in Europe and the United States is becoming dominant," Timofeev believes.
In particular, one should not expect that rhetorical attacks from Republican competitors will somehow affect the policy of the Biden administration, the expert noted. "This is a double-edged sword. If the White House changes course, it will give opponents a reason to believe that the Democrats are showing weakness towards Russia – and are not capable of anything at all," Timofeev said. Therefore, taking into account the upcoming midterm November congressional elections (when members of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate will be elected), and the presidential campaign of 2024, Biden's team is unlikely to curtail support for Ukraine, the analyst believes.
A change of course can be considered not even the termination of military support for Ukraine (the United States, and therefore Europe, too, clearly do not intend to refuse it), but the encouragement of Kiev to search for a diplomatic solution to the issue, Mezhuyev believes.
"Of course, I really hope that supporters of a pragmatic point of view will win inside the Biden administration. But realistically speaking, it is very difficult to expect that this will happen before the autumn midterm elections," Timofeev agrees with his colleague. – The Washington Post writes on Sunday that Democrats have a chance to retain a majority in the House of Representatives. Therefore, the White House is most afraid of receiving accusations of the Democratic Party of softness, weakness and inconsistency in relation to Moscow."
"I have always felt a certain optimism about the possibility of negotiations, but now the reasons for this have run out," says Mezhuyev. – I'll note it again. Despite the large number of signals that the American political class is beginning to approach the situation realistically, Kiev continues to say that no negotiations are possible until the foot of the last Russian soldier leaves the Crimean peninsula. And this means that the position of the patrons of the Ukrainian authorities does not change."
It seems that the situation is frozen, experts say. "On the one hand, there is an understanding that the situation in Ukraine cannot be resolved by the defeat of Russia, which cannot afford to lose. With all the investments in equipping the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the notorious Ukrainian counteroffensive, the option with an endless continuation of hostilities can result in a catastrophe, including a nuclear one. At the same time, everyone understands that Europe has no ways to cope with the shortage of energy carriers, and the prospect of a gas price of $ 5,000 per thousand cubic meters does not look fantastic," Mezhuyev points out. "On the other hand, it seems that until November, that is, before the midterm elections in the United States, the situation was put on pause."
Mikhail Moshkin
