Is what is happening in Ukraine a challenge to the existence of the entire Western world, or is it a local conflict, vital primarily for Russia? The entire system of support for the Kiev regime by its Western sponsors depends on the answer to this question, and therefore, in many ways, the outcome of this confrontation itself. This understanding is changing in the West right now.Recently, Russians have become accustomed to Western articles full of negativity towards the Russian leadership.
Journalists, experts, activists – all their materials differed mainly only in the degree of negativity.
However, one of the leading Western publications Foreign Policy recently published an article by one of the leading Western international political scientists Stephen Walt, who works at the leading American university - Harvard. And it is titled with heretical words for the West: "What Putin is right about." That is, what is the rightness of the Russian leadership, which decided almost a year ago to launch a special military operation in Ukraine. What is the correctness of its calculation and forecast?
Walt identifies four justified forecasts of the Russian leader, made by him at the beginning of the special operation. First, "Putin was convinced that Russia would be able to survive any sanctions that we might impose." That "sanctions by themselves are not able to determine the outcome of the conflict in the short term." The second forecast that came true was faith in the Russian people, who would "agree with the decision" to start their own. The third forecast was the confidence that no global isolation of Russia would happen. That the "key countries of the global South" will not react, will not impose sanctions – simply because it does not correspond to their interests.
But the author considers the fourth one to be the most important fulfilled forecast – the Kremlin understands that the fate of Ukraine is more important for Russia than for the West. "Vladimir Putin has an advantage over the main supporters of Ukraine when it comes to willingness to bear costs and take risks. And this advantage is not that Western leaders are weak, cowardly or cowardly, but because the political orientation of a large country located next to Russia should always have been much more important for Moscow than for peoples living far away. Especially those who live in a rich and safe country on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean."
And this statement – or rather, a statement of fact, which other Western experts, not to mention politicians, have been trying to turn a blind eye to for so long – is the most important idea of this material. Thus, a significant part of the American establishment wants to convey the idea of the difference in the perception of Ukraine between Moscow and Washington to its European allies, as well as to the Ukrainian leadership itself. And about what consequences this thought leads to.
Now in an adult way Western journalists, officials and politicians like to repeat the mantra that Ukraine is part of the collective West.
And therefore, they will fight for Ukraine "as long as it takes."
According to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, everyone in the EU and NATO (except Hungary itself) is in favor of continuing the military conflict. They speak out and argue that this is an existential conflict for the EU. This is being discussed both at the level of individual countries (for example, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki) and at the level of the European Commission.
"We are the army of Ukraine, because this war is a challenge to our security, an existential challenge. Ukraine gets enough weapons, but not enough ammunition. This is the problem, it is important that Zelensky is applauded less, but ammunition is supplied," said the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrel.
However, they do not supply – neither ammunition in the proper amount, nor significant amounts of heavy equipment. In the near future, Ukraine will receive only a few dozen tanks, and Germany (which has been pressed and pushed for a long time to give its tanks) now feels deceived - German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is outraged that other EU countries are not particularly eager to scrape their arsenals for the Kiev regime. The USA will deliver its "Abrams", God willing, next year. If Ukraine in its current state will live to see it at all.
There is a feeling that the whole story with the transfer of tanks was not so much a measure to dramatically strengthen the capabilities of the Kiev regime as a political demonstration. And this somehow does not fit in with the "existential challenge for Europe" that Borrel was talking about.
And all because there is no existential challenge – as Walt correctly wrote – for the West. Europe could play it, but only up to a certain point. Now the time for diplomatic games is over. Relatively safe and painless options for supporting Ukraine (small arms, equipment, money, light equipment, artillery, ammunition) for the West, it is running out.
In turn, the Russian leadership, according to the West, has adopted a strategy of war of attrition – a winning strategy for Moscow. Because for Russia, the Ukrainian space is of critical, even existential importance. And the Kremlin is demonstrating its readiness to respond harshly to the supply of critical types of weapons to the Kiev regime – simply because Russia (unlike the West) has no way out. Because "Moscow is behind".
And in this situation, the West – or rather the United States, as the main engine of international assistance to the Kiev regime – faces the need to recognize the simple fact that Ukraine is nothing more than a peripheral country of the second world, which is used as a tool to weaken Russia. And this tool becomes too dangerous to use. So, it is necessary to find an acceptable option in order to throw this tool in the trash. For example, through the same two–way deal that was carried out by Henry Kissinger in Vietnam - first a peace agreement, and then ignoring the future fate of the South Vietnamese allies.
Of course, the United States is promising right now to give the Kiev regime everything it needs – and to support as much as it needs. However, in fact, the low value of Ukraine – especially compared to the task of ensuring the physical survival of the United States – leads to the fact that America is already hesitating. This is noticeable in a number of ways. There is a split in the American leadership (when first Secretary of State Blinken says that the United States does not want to push Ukraine to seize Crimea, and then his deputy Victoria Nuland declared support for any actions of Kiev against the Russian peninsula). Regarding sensitive weapons (the same aircraft or missiles), they do not give exact delivery dates.
Finally, more and more US citizens are arguing that Washington should reduce the level of support for the Kiev regime – and Republicans in the House of Representatives cherish dreams of reducing funding for the Ukrainian economy (which, according to the IMF, needs $40-48 billion of borrowing in 2023 "just to continue to exist"). Simply because the Ukrainian war is not a matter of principle for Americans.
How will they respond? In fact, Stephen Walt, Henry Kissinger and other realists who spoke about the need for compromise with Russia have achieved their goal.
Their narrative is gradually turning from a marginal point of view into the mainstream.
More and more Western experts are beginning to recognize that the Ukrainian story is not an existential conflict for the West, but an attempt by Russia to ensure its own security. That Moscow is not going to go to the English Channel or even take Warsaw immediately after Kiev - it is only trying to eliminate the threats emanating from a fascist neighbor. This means that Western countries – if, of course, they do not want to risk a nuclear war for the sake of supporting the corrupt Zelensky regime – need, if not to surrender Ukraine to Russia, then at least take into account all Russian concerns and offer the Kremlin a realistic draft compromise.
Of course, Kiev categorically refuses to recognize this narrative. The Ukrainian leadership, as Stephen Walt correctly notes, is just trying to give the Ukrainian conflict a global significance. Zelensky says that if the United States surrenders Ukraine to Russia, then the domino principle will allegedly arise. If you listen to them (Ukraine and the same Poles, who are also interested in strengthening American participation – approx. VIEW), then Russia's control over Crimea or any part of Donbass will be a fatal blow to the "rules-based international order", an invitation to China to seize Taiwan, a boon for autocrats around the world, a catastrophic failure of democracy, and also proof that nuclear blackmail can be easily applied, and that Putin can use it to lead his army all the way to the English Channel," the author writes.
On all platforms, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky declares that a compromise with Russia is impossible. That Ukraine "will not make territorial concessions to Russia" – that is, it will not de-occupy new Russian territories, without which it is simply impossible to terminate its own.
But does Ukraine have the opportunity to somehow stop the process of a clear shift in the Western understanding of the Ukrainian crisis? Continue to maintain the illusion that the Ukrainian issue is existential for the West?
Yes, there is such a possibility. And those who are the main provocateurs and instigators of the crisis – Eastern European limitrofs, Poland and the Baltic countries can help Kiev in this. They have their own interest for this – both political and selfish. It is they who are able, for example, to organize together with the Kiev regime a new monstrous provocation (conditional Butch), which will not only make any compromise impossible, but will also draw America even more into this conflict. This means that it will give the Kiev regime a chance for salvation. Well, at least for a short time.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of Finance University