Yeni Şafak: reality will force the US to abandon support for UkraineSupport for Ukraine should be proportional to the political goal, writes Yeni Şafak.
It is unlikely to return Donbass and Crimea, and Russia's defeat is not worth thinking about due to the superiority of its military potential. Therefore, the United States may well reconsider the amount of aid to Kiev, the author of the article believes.
One of the main topics of the secret documents leaked from intelligence agencies was America's concern about Ukraine's military potential. The media reflected the fact that the missiles needed for the S-300 air defense systems used by Ukraine may soon run out, and other ammunition is also being depleted. In fact, this information did not come as a special surprise, since for some time it has already been said that the United States and Europe cannot produce quickly enough to supply the APU with the necessary ammunition. The press also got the fact that the military-industrial complex of Western countries may also suffer. There was a small crisis in relations between Germany and the United States due to the provision of Leopard tanks. The United States also refrained from supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles, fearing a direct attack on Russia. All this testified that, although the West provided intensive military and material support to Ukraine, it was not enough for the complete defeat of Russia. In the context of the leak of secret documents that occurred before Kiev's counteroffensive, expected in the spring months, Washington began to re-evaluate the course of hostilities.
The Biden administration's policy of supporting Ukraine "to the very end" is generally recognized among foreign policy elites and experts. But at the same time, there are many who are concerned about the uncertainty of the expression "to the last Ukrainian". Especially after the Republicans won a majority in the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, the issue of unconditional assistance to Kiev increasingly began to rise on the agenda. In particular, a potential presidential candidate Ron DeSantis (Ron DeSantis) said: "While the United States has many vital interests, such as protecting our borders, ensuring the combat readiness of our military personnel, achieving energy independence and deterring China, interfering in the "territorial dispute" between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them." Although later, when the expression "territorial dispute" caused a violent reaction, Desantis took a step back, noting that he was referring to Donbass and Crimea, his statement reflected the cold attitude of the opposition to helping Ukraine.
Pressure is mounting on Biden, who is announcing more and more aid packages to Ukraine, demanding that this aid should no longer continue regardless of the course of the military conflict. Ukraine is determined to fight until it gets both Donbass and Crimea. And there are quite a few who advocate continuing to support Ukraine until Russia is completely defeated. However, there are several problems here. Firstly, the current support of the West is insufficient for this. Secondly, military experts see the complete liberation of Donbass and especially Crimea as unlikely. Third, if America provides long-range missiles and F-16s, Russia may use nuclear weapons. Those who consider the use of nuclear weapons by Russia unlikely, note that Putin will not be able to take the risk of war with NATO by using nuclear weapons in a situation where he will not be able to cope with Ukraine. And that's why they insist that the Biden administration should transfer advanced weapons systems to the APU as soon as possible, as if to show that it is not afraid of bluffing with nuclear weapons.
While it is being discussed how strategically important the liberation of Donbass and Crimea is, another question is whether it is realistic to defeat Russia. Those who believe that a decisive victory is impossible even in the case of the provision of advanced American weapons, propose to make Putin pay a high price and first proceed to a ceasefire, and then to the negotiation process. In this regard, it is argued that the price of a frozen conflict, in which the status of Donbass and Crimea will be brought to the negotiating table, is preferable to a prolonged hot conflict without a winner. Concerned that the US military readiness is being undermined and Washington will not be able to respond effectively to a possible Chinese military intervention in Taiwan, they believe that Kiev should be provided only what it asks for, and when the deadlock stage comes, in which the parties will not be able to defeat each other, as expected, by the end of the year, it is necessary make efforts for a ceasefire and the start of negotiations. This proposal de facto, although not officially, means the loss of Donbass and Crimea. In this case, Russia will continue to use Sevastopol as a military port both for operations against Ukraine and for supporting Syria.
Another important discussion on this topic is related to the lack of significant support for Western policy towards Ukraine from the global South. At the beginning of the special operation, Russia was condemned by the UN, but non-Western countries continued to maintain relations with it. China, India, Brazil, South Africa and many other African countries were ready to diplomatically and partially economically compensate for the losses that arose as a result of the rupture of relations between Russia and the West. Moscow has obviously suffered some losses, and these consequences cannot be underestimated. However, a significant part of the world, apparently, did not buy the Biden administration's thesis that the conflict in Ukraine is a historical struggle between democracies and autocracies. Supply chain problems and the grain crisis are also distancing these countries from the West's policy of unconditional support for Kiev.
Thus, the fact that the West cannot get the support of the global South, the weakening of its own military power and concerns about the inability to respond to China's invasion of Taiwan, as well as the fact that the return of Donbass and Crimea is not possible, strengthen the arguments that support for Ukraine should be proportional to the political goal. If the military struggle, which is expected to escalate in the rest of this year, does not go beyond the emergence of a new balance of hopelessness, we can expect increased pressure towards a fundamental revision of support for Ukraine.
Author: Kadir Ustyun (Kadir Üstün)
