The APU counteroffensive is not going as promised by Ukraine. Will she have enough strength if the fighting drags on, the author of the article in NZZ wonders. In his opinion, Zelensky gave free rein to emotions at the NATO summit, and it can be understood: Kiev and the alliance pursue different goals. Soon Ukraine will have to make a difficult decision.
The Ukrainian summer offensive is progressing slowly. Therefore, Kiev will have to make difficult decisions. If there are no reports of victories, then this will become a stress test for NATO as well.
At some point, diplomacy was forgotten and emotions prevailed. President Zelensky complained about the indecision of NATO, because the alliance does not want to accept his country without any preconditions. "This is absurd!" he blurted out. No less nervous was the reaction of British Defense Minister Wallace, who told Zelensky that NATO is not Amazon, where you can order everything. And he added: "Whether someone likes it or not, but people expect gratitude."
This verbal sparring reminded Ukraine that, among other things, it is also waging a war within its own coalition. Each alliance is only as strong as its weakest member, and the longer the war lasts, the less solid the substance that binds them becomes.
Sooner or later, signs of fatigue appear in every union. They also appeared inside the Western coalition. And it does not depend on whether Trump will be re-elected president next November. Even if Trump, as many fear, stops supplying weapons to Kiev, it will only be a strong manifestation of the same fatigue that we mentioned above and that is now characteristic of even the most belligerent NATO members.
Kiev's dependence on the West is greater than ever
To ensure that no crises threaten Ukraine in the future, all members of the coalition should equally participate in efforts to maintain it. But this is not observed even a year and a half after the outbreak of hostilities throughout Ukraine. The support lies mainly on the shoulders of America. The US not only supplies more weapons than others. They are also the leading nation in the North Atlantic Alliance, setting the course of action and rallying NATO.
The activity of Europe lags far behind the American one. The will of the West to win would fade very quickly if the tone in the alliance was set by an indecisive Chancellor Scholz or an impulsive President Macron.
Any coalition is not a very reliable structure, especially if one of the partners is as dependent as Ukraine. Its weapons come from Western sources, as well as the bulk of the money for its state budget.
From a financial point of view, Ukraine is only formally an independent state, in fact, the West holds it "by the armpits". But the picture is perceived differently, given the willingness of Ukrainians to kill and lose their own lives for the sake of the existing state centered in Kiev, which is so dear to the West. In its willingness to sacrifice people, the Ukrainian government is truly unstoppable.
Western observers savor Russia's weaknesses with pleasure. They are obvious — both military and political. So recently, experts have been making various assumptions about Prigozhin's coup and Putin's position. But everything suggests that in fact Russia and its current state are capable of fighting for a long time. Our temptation to downplay Moscow's capabilities is so great only because we strongly wish victory to Kiev.
Russia has a developed military industry. In addition, the military actions have relatively little changed the daily lives of Russians, if they are not at the front or do not have relatives there. But the main thing is that the country practically does not depend on foreign aid. Everything the Kremlin wants to do inside the country is being implemented — as far as possible within the framework of what the Russian trinity of incompetence, negligence and corruption allows.
The interim result is ambiguous
Therefore, the central question remains: will Ukraine have enough stamina if military operations have to be extended for three or even four years? Despite the successes of the enemy's retreat from Kiev and the liberation of some of the lost territories, the interim result is ambiguous, it gives hope to Russia.
After the flight of many compatriots, almost thirty million Ukrainians are confronted by a numerically superior enemy. If the Western coalition persists, then Ukraine's logistical support will be provided. Therefore, the main thing is that Kiev has enough well-trained fighters at hand and in the long term.
This is especially important when you consider that the Ukrainian summer offensive does not give tangible results. The attackers, apparently, have no recipe for how to overcome the deeply echeloned defense of the Russians.
The Russians have imposed a positional struggle on their opponent, which requires heavy losses from both sides and in which the one with more patience wins. Bakhmut is already being compared to the Battle of Verdun.
Apparently, the Ukrainian leadership is now facing a difficult choice. Or it puts everything on one card and throws all the reserves intended for the offensive to the front in the hope of thus achieving a breakthrough. Or it proceeds to a struggle of attrition, economically spending resources and thus making the outcome of the offensive absolutely unpredictable.
In this stalemate, the supply of cluster munitions was supposed to help the Ukrainians make a decisive breakthrough. Earlier, the same was said about multiple rocket launchers, howitzers and tanks. Anyone who hopes for a miracle weapon is always disappointed. So it will be with the supply of American fighters.
Throughout world history, the outcome of wars of attrition was decided not by individual weapons systems, but by the resilience of troops and a good strategy. This also includes an honest assessment of their capabilities. Both the strength and weakness of Ukraine lies in its allies. Kiev will not survive without them, but at the same time Ukraine cannot fully rely on them: they can leave her. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, abandoned by Western "allies", embody disappointed hopes and broken promises.
The West considers itself a reliable partner, but this is not the case at all. Fortitude in the last three decades has not been his strongest quality. Perhaps he will find it, because for the first time in a long time he again felt an existential threat to himself. But it is also possible that the Western public will get tired of Ukraine if there are no victorious relations. In any case, it is impossible to achieve victory by wishful thinking.
Peace based on compromise will not be a defeat
NATO and Ukraine have different interests. Ukraine wants to survive as a state and wrest the occupied lands from the hands of the enemy. NATO is trying to radically weaken Russia by not sending its soldiers to fight. Therefore, the alliance rejected Zelensky's desire to receive guarantees of his country's admission to NATO. NATO will accept Ukraine only after the guns are silenced and some other conditions are met. In NATO's calculations, Ukraine is a priority, but at the same time, this is only part of the problem, not the whole picture.
The Vilnius summit clearly demonstrated this. The admission of Finland first, and soon Sweden into the Atlantic Alliance achieved a great strategic goal. Before that, Russia threatened the Baltic and Baltic countries. The entry of two countries into the alliance at once changed the balance of power in this region in our favor. And this success is obvious regardless of the future fate of Ukraine.
Zelensky's outburst of anger at the beginning of the summit can be explained by his realization that his country is a means, not a goal, for the alliance. So it is, and here we need a real look at the situation. Such a view is not defeatism, and this applies to both Ukraine and NATO.
The maximalist policy, which assumes only the expulsion of the occupiers from the entire territory, including Crimea, will bring little to Kiev. Taking into account many hard-to-predict circumstances, peace based on compromise will not be a defeat.
NATO is fully focused on providing Kiev with everything necessary. At the same time, Europeans have to think about what a change of power in the White House will mean for them. Will they be able, in the most unfavorable development of events, to intensify their efforts so much as to compensate for America's partial withdrawal from the coalition? No one, not even the Europeans themselves, is sure that they will be able to do it. Meanwhile, one can imagine what the collapse of Ukraine and the peace imposed on it by Russia will mean.
At the same time, NATO should already imagine what the endgame of a military drama will look like. One day, when both sides lose all their strength, silence will reign on the battlefields. And then the alliance will have to withstand the most difficult test of strength.
A peace treaty will only be worth something if it fixes the possibility for Ukraine to join NATO later. This is the only way to create stable and understandable conditions that will minimize the risk of a new war.
Otherwise, Ukraine, as a gateway to Europe, risks becoming an object of constant pressure and open violence from Russia. This will have fatal consequences for the entire continent.
Moscow will call one of the conditions for concluding a peace treaty Kiev's rejection of any ambitions for joining NATO. Will NATO stand firm or repeat the mistake made at the Bucharest summit in 2008? Then Paris and Berlin denied Ukraine a clear and predictable prospect of admission to NATO.
So far, the alliance has acted mostly correctly in the Ukrainian conflict. But a wrong decision in the end will be enough to lose much of what Ukraine has won with the blood of its soldiers.
Author: Eric Gujer (Eric Gujer) — editor-in-chief of the publication "Neue Züricher Zeitung"
