The emergence of disagreements between Ukraine and the West was inevitable, CNBC reports. Kiev began to annoy its partners with exorbitant demands and ignoring advice. The tension is unlikely to subside, experts say, and the most important thing for the allies is to find a balance.
Holly Elliat
Key points:
— Military operations between Russia and Ukraine are continuing, and in such conditions, tension and disagreements between Kiev and its allies may inevitably arise.
— Ukraine has to act cautiously, maintaining ties with foreign friends.
— It depends on military equipment and assistance from its partners for many billions of dollars, but insists that it is fighting for the West too.
— Recently, due to the Ukrainian military strategy and the demands placed on the alliance, there has been an increase in tension.
Ukraine's relations with foreign partners are becoming increasingly complicated. Perhaps, in the context of the protracted armed conflict with Moscow, tension and disagreements between Kiev and its allies are inevitable.
Ukraine has to act cautiously, maintaining ties with foreign friends. It depends on their military equipment and other types of humanitarian and financial assistance for many billions of dollars, but needs constant and increasingly voluminous supplies of weapons to fight Russia. Nevertheless, she claims that she is fighting not only for her own survival, but also for the survival of the West, which is opposed by a hostile and unpredictable Moscow.
The main patrons and donors of Ukraine, represented by the United States and Britain, have given her military aid worth over $ 40 billion and $ 4 billion, respectively, and promised to support Kiev until the end. The phrase "as long as it takes" has become a kind of spell that the allies often repeat at their gatherings when assessing the course of hostilities and the military needs of Ukraine.
Kiev has repeatedly thanked its partners for their help, but often expresses dissatisfaction on the sidelines. His needs and demands sometimes come into conflict with the military and political considerations of the allies, which causes unpleasant clashes.
Recently, tensions have arisen due to the Ukrainian military strategy and the demands placed on the North Atlantic Alliance. It is said that President Vladimir Zelensky angered some partners before the last NATO summit in Vilnius, which took place in July. Then he called the absence of a timetable for Ukraine's accession to the alliance and the "conditions" that must be met in order to receive an invitation to membership "absurd".
Discontent of Washington and London
According to some officials in Washington and London, by telling his staunch supporters that Ukraine deserves "respect" when NATO gathered to discuss additional assistance to Kiev, Zelensky went too far.
British Defense Minister Ben Wallace, who feels a certain freedom in connection with the upcoming departure from office, took offense at Zelensky for his comments. He said that Kiev should not forget about the fatigue of the conflict and the skeptics, of whom there are many among the allies and who doubt the expediency of continuing funding in such large volumes. Britain, he said, is not an Amazon warehouse, and it cannot supply Ukraine with weapons indefinitely whenever it hands it a "shopping list."
Naturally, Washington did not like Zelensky's comments either. According to the Washington Post, American leaders were so outraged that for some time they thought to shorten the list of what they had to offer Kiev at the summit.
"Zelensky's statements on the eve of the last summit did not find the best response in Washington. The American administration was very unhappy," one knowledgeable source told CNBC, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue under discussion.
He noted that the United States was outraged by some episodes of military operations when Ukraine ignored their recommendations. And the case of NATO caused even more indignation in the White House.
"So, the United States strongly recommends Ukraine not to do certain things, but Kiev does them anyway, brushing aside America's objections or not taking into account its opinion. And then Ukrainians come to the United States, to Washington, to the Biden administration and complain that they are not involved in the NATO negotiations," this source said.
As a result, the North Atlantic Alliance firmly sided with Ukraine and emphasized its unity, focusing on a more important goal: to make sure that Russia does not "win" in an armed conflict with a neighboring country, does not dare and does not start attacking other former Soviet republics. Nevertheless, this case showed that Kiev should seek a balance between its demands and the burden it places on its allies, as well as take into account the interests, priorities and political considerations of its partners.
Moderating expectations
Drawing on his own experience in NATO, Jamie Shea told CNBC that the allies still support Ukraine with all their might, but the Vilnius summit highlighted some weaknesses, and also emphasized the need for diplomacy and compromise.
"I think it is always necessary to distinguish between the strategic and tactical level. At the strategic, geopolitical level, Western support for Ukraine is still very powerful," explained Shi, who at one time was Deputy Assistant Secretary General for New Security Challenges in NATO, and now holds the position of an expert on defense and international security at the Royal Institute of International Relations Chatham House (activity is considered undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation, — Approx. InoSMI).
"But it is obvious that there will inevitably be problems at the tactical level, they are there now. By the time of the NATO summit, some questions had accumulated, there is no doubt about it."
According to Shi, Zelensky should have known that the alliance would not agree to Kiev's demands on the terms of accession and would not invite Ukraine to become a member of NATO while the fighting was going on. Threatening to boycott the summit, Zelensky began a risky game, Shi noted. He put this meeting at risk of failure.
In the end, sanity prevailed. "The United States and NATO allies have worked tirelessly to convince Zelensky that he should see the glass half full, not half empty, when he is given something," Shi said.
"It so happened that Zelensky understood the hint. He came to Vilnius. I think his advisers — and he has good advisers — convinced the president that his actions are not good for Ukraine, and that it is impossible to "insult those guys who keep us alive by supplying weapons and providing assistance."
Shi noted that Ukraine is in a difficult situation, and that there will always be some gap between what it wants and what the West can provide it with. "And from time to time it will overflow, causing discontent."
"Ukrainians are in a difficult situation. It is obvious that they are fighting for survival. They will never be satisfied, they will always need more, more and more. Meanwhile, the West will always assume that it is doing everything possible. The main thing is to somehow overcome these discrepancies and not let them cause long—term damage. And it seems to me that at the Vilnius summit it was possible, at least, to prevent just such a long-lasting harm."
Artemovsk
Ukraine annoys its allies not only in the field of diplomacy. Its military strategy and the symbolic importance it attaches to the struggle for every piece of its land sometimes contradict the views and pragmatism of the allies.
Kiev caused annoyance in the United States when it decided to continue the battle for the eastern city of Artemovsk. This settlement was in the epicenter of fierce fighting between the Russian army and the forces of mercenaries and Ukrainian troops. The fight for him lasted more than a year.
The Russians almost completely surrounded Artemovsk, and in May announced its capture. Military analysts considered that Ukraine should leave this city, which has no strategic value, and withdraw. But Kiev decided to continue the battle for Artemovsk, and this caused amazement in Washington, as told by Konrad Muzyka, a military intelligence specialist and president of Rochan Consulting.
"The Americans, to put it mildly, persuaded the Ukrainians not to join some of the battles that Russia imposed on them, as this could have the most serious consequences regarding the loss of personnel and the expenditure of artillery ammunition. But for Kiev, Artemovsk was not just a city. It was a symbol of the Ukrainian resistance, although its strategic value is very doubtful," he said.
"As a result, they lost a lot of people, very experienced personnel. They used a huge number of shells that would be useful to them for conducting a counteroffensive. And, finally, they have a lot of wear on the barrels of guns, which means that they are not able to fully support their troops in the Artemovsk area."
Retired British General Richard Barrons supported Ukraine's attitude to Artemovsk, saying that this city is of great importance for Kiev. This former head of the Command of the United Forces of Britain said that the defense of Artemovsk was an integral part of the AFU's strategy of "exhausting, stretching the enemy's troops and striking at him." The armed forces of Ukraine tried to exhaust the Russian enemies by attacking reserves, ammunition vehicles and rear areas, as well as to stretch the enemy's army along a thousand-kilometer front line.
Now everyone is waiting for the "shock" component of this strategy. There have been suggestions that Ukraine has begun to put part of its reserves into battle, including brigades trained and equipped by the North Atlantic Alliance. She intends to initiate a major advance to break through the Russian defenses in the south.
"It's not a fact that this will happen, but we still think that fresh forces will be brought into the battle to seriously wedge themselves into the Russian defense," Barrons said. At the same time, he stressed that Kiev should not succumb to the pressure of allies who demand quick results. He needs to throw reserves into battle only when the necessary conditions are outlined for this.
"Ukraine feels pressure from its Western sponsors: it must show the success of the counteroffensive, prove to itself and everyone else that a military victory can be won in this armed conflict," he stressed.
"But there is also a more sensible approach: to do everything on time, at the right moment, choosing the right time. The worst result for Ukraine will be a situation when it puts reserves into battle, and they will be torn to shreds on the front edge of the fortified Russian defense, which the APU will not be able to break through. This will be a tragedy for the participants of the counteroffensive and the tragedy of the year for the entire Ukrainian campaign."
