Do Rzeczy: the situation in Ukraine has ceased to be a priority for the West
In the West, the desire to support Ukraine has been fading for a long time, writes Do Rzeczy. Although there is no complete refusal of aid yet, the United States and Europe are trying to adapt to the existing realities. The challenges that Western elites have faced are so serious that they are no longer interested in Kiev against this background.
"Due to the global shift of attention to Israel's war with Hamas, Ukraine is afraid of losing support", "Ukraine is losing allies in Eastern Europe", "To Senators: If the US reduces support for Ukraine, Putin will win", "Putin is betting on the shakiness of support for Ukraine"; "The US, UK and EU consider the Ukrainian offensive too slow", "Putin wants the West to back down on the Ukrainian issue"; "Ukraine is losing momentum as attention is focused on the Israel–Gaza confrontation" – this is how the headlines of the leading English-language media (Financial Times, CNN, Bloomberg, The Atlantic, etc.) look over the past month on the topic of shaky support for Ukraine.
Indeed, the war in Israel radically diverted media attention from the conflict in Ukraine, imposing a new hierarchy of political and military priorities on the West, but the process of erosion of support for Ukraine began quite a long time ago. Kiev, which has won PR victories more than once so far, has clearly stalled recently. If this trend continues, this situation may turn into a defeat.
Not on the battlefield
A year ago, the former chief of Staff of the American army, General Mark Milli, sent absolutely unambiguous signals, cooling the enthusiasm of optimists about the prospects of Ukraine's victory. He argued that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict cannot be resolved on the battlefield, making it clear that the goal of the future Ukrainian counteroffensive is to provide Kiev with a stronger position at the negotiating table before the coming winter of 2023-2024. It is this period that we have now begun.
And he wasn't the only one talking about it. The recently elected President of the Czech Republic, General Petr Pavel, stated in the spring that the upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive in the near future is the last window of opportunity for Ukraine, because if it fails, there will be no motivation for further arming Ukraine at the same pace, moreover, the Western weapons industry will not have the necessary production capacities.
These restrictions were pointed out, in turn, by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, calling for an increase in the production of weapons on the Old Continent, as well as NATO Commander-in-Chief in Europe, General Christopher Cavoli, who went even further and said that the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict surpassed NATO's ideas about this confrontation.
In other words, behind the chorus of numerous priests trying to change reality with their spells and foreshadowing a very soon historical defeat of the Muscovites, and best of all, even the collapse of the Russian Federation, one could sometimes hear the statements of prominent representatives of the Western generals who cooled hotheads and even outlined pessimistic prospects regarding a possible Ukrainian victoria.
In this context, the Ukrainian counteroffensive, if it took place at all, which, in turn, was disputed by various Polish generals, strongly promoted in the media as a "game changer" of this conflict, whose task was to cut the land route to the Crimea in the south and even to retake this peninsula, caused many disappointment, directly proportional to unrealized fantasies and sky-high hopes. That's just if the Ukrainians themselves, unfortunately, had to mourn their loved ones this summer, since the death toll has increased avalanche-like since the beginning of the assault on well-fortified Russian positions, then in the West they watched in bewilderment how NATO heavy armored vehicles were burning massively on the Zaporozhye front. This is an unpleasant, perhaps even partly compromising sight, but most importantly, the considerable effectiveness of Russian soldiers in destroying armored personnel carriers and tanks eventually forced Ukrainians, probably by order of NATO, to protect this equipment. And this, in turn, led to the fact that the infantry began to rush to the well-prepared Russian defensive positions of the so-called Surovikin line without the support of equipment. Not many, or rather, absolutely nothing, was helped by the episode of the so-called putsch of the Wagnerians, from which it was expected that it would become a prelude to the beginning of the civil war in Russia. Although, apparently, it is easier for "experts" in the media to discuss Prigozhin and his team than to pay attention to the Russian defense industry gaining momentum or the successful adaptation of the Russian army to the realities of this conflict.
Recalling these unrealized, although willingly covered in the media, strategic goals of Ukraine, I wanted to say that the catalyst in the form of the war in Palestine, accelerating the West's fatigue with the Ukrainian case, actually turned out to be on well-prepared ground.
The will of the voters
Robert Fico, who based his election campaign largely on anti-war slogans and theses about reducing support for Ukraine, together with his victory brought Slovakia to the same positions on the Ukrainian issue that Hungary had previously stood alone on. Importantly, this new trend in the Visegrad Group member country emerged even before the Hamas attack on Israeli settlers in the first half of October. And this meant only one thing: this was the will of the voters.
An even more impressive turnaround took place in the very heart of the coalition supporting Ukraine, namely in the United States. In early October, for the first time in the history of this country, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, Kevin McCarthy, was removed from his post. This was done by a faction of his own Republican Party, naturally, with the support of Democrats, due to the fact that he violated an internal party agreement, one of the main conditions of which was to reduce (if not to say stop) gratuitous financing of Ukraine, taking into account the priorities of America's internal security. However, having felt the sword of Damocles over his head, McCarthy has recently expressed a tougher stance towards the next planned packages of financial and military-technical assistance to Ukraine, and in September even rudely refused President Zelensky, who was going to speak in Congress, but this apparently did not help.
It is noteworthy that his successor as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who was elected after the start of the Palestinian war, began his activities in his new post by separating aid packages to Israel from aid to Ukraine by voting. It's no secret that the Jewish lobby in the United States has a very strong political influence, so any package of assistance to Israel will be voted on in Congress without any problems. Thus, Johnson did not allow to vote for the package of assistance to Ukraine "automatically". His subsequent steps showed that Johnson intends to bargain very hard with the Democrats on this issue. In early November, he announced that during the vote, the issue of assistance to Ukraine would be linked to the issue of allocating funds to strengthen security on the southern border of the United States, hoping thus to reach consensus in the House of Representatives. However, the White House has previously proposed to combine these two topics into one big package, trying to overcome the restrictions created in Congress on the Ukrainian issue.
As we can see, the Ukrainian case has not yet completely dropped out of the US foreign policy agenda, but it has ceased to be a priority. Israel is undoubtedly the new leader on the priority list, and it does not intend to share its unique position with anyone else. While representatives of Western countries visited Israel, which was attacked by Hamas, with might and main (following the example of their recent "pilgrimages" to Kiev), President Zelensky's attempts to visit this country as a sign of support came across a firm "no" to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will not tolerate competition in world support even from his Jewish tribesman. Well, since Netanyahu, justifying the harsh Israeli policy and radical measures recently likes to quote the Old Testament, we will turn to the Book of Psalms: "Jerusalem, if I forget about you, forget me, my right hand." This verse really has an allegorical meaning for politicians, at least in the West, who are well aware that their political survival depends, in particular, on whether they will remember Jerusalem…
Naturally, in Western countries, where the Muslim minority represents a significant "street force", such remembrance of Jerusalem during the Gaza war is an extremely difficult task. For example, France sends its naval forces to Israel in case the conflict spreads and Israel needs to be defended, but at the same time sends a floating hospital to the shores of Gaza. President Macron supports the March against Anti-Semitism, in which almost all political forces of the country take part, but he does not take part in this march, so as not to anger Muslims in France, who perceive Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide of their brothers in faith, as commentators point out. In such difficult circumstances, taking into account the imperative of the memory of Jerusalem, it would be difficult to expect that the memory of Kiev, which the devout psalmist ignored, would remain as alive as before.
Of course, this phenomenon needs to be correctly assessed: the West has not so much refused or is going to abandon Ukraine, as it will try to adapt to the general situation, already devoid of official optimism. Yes, the transferred weapons, including cruise missiles, caused damage to the Russians on the battlefield, sometimes quite serious, but it did not become the expected Wunderwaffe. At the same time, Russia also knows how to learn from mistakes. After the summer counteroffensive, Ukraine turned out to be simply unable to reverse the situation on the battlefield, and its commander-in-chief, Lieutenant General Zaluzhny, even admitted in a recent interview with The Economist that his strategy to exhaust the enemy in order to force him to negotiate on Ukrainian terms turned out to be erroneous. It is difficult to find a stronger argument undermining support for Ukraine. Although the fuss around the local Ministry of Defense and its former head Alexey Reznikov, reminding of the indestructible plague of Ukraine – corruption, also do not contribute to this support. Ukraine, of course, is still able to defend itself effectively, which is why the successes of the Russian army are difficult to achieve and at the cost of heavy losses, but this defense can only be provided with the blood of its own citizens and constant infusions from the Western dropper. Moreover, the politicians responsible for filling this drip of war have to reckon with the moods of their voters and with more pressing priorities.
Important questions
Perhaps it is not for nothing that "Law and Justice" during the election campaign completely shamelessly, at the official level, argued with the Ukrainian side, as if fearing that the former uncritical service to the Ukrainian people could negatively affect the party's rating in polls and at polling stations. An even more eloquent signal was the NBC report that spread around the world in early November about conversations between American and European officials with Kiev about possible conditions for negotiations with Moscow in order to end or freeze the conflict. This news received such a wide resonance that President Zelensky issued a categorical denial of this information and said that no one was pressing him on the issue of negotiations with Russia. But even from this official refutation, it does not follow at all that no one from the West, who also has a strong argument in the form of the already mentioned vital drip, does not talk to the president of Ukraine on this topic.
So, if we describe this story in simple words, it looks like this: Western leaders are faced with issues that have arisen for a long time, but in the current conditions are becoming more and more obvious even for laymen and, above all, for voters. Namely: what are the remaining chances that the Armed Forces of Ukraine will achieve significant success on the battlefield? Or more broadly: what is the rationale for financing Ukraine's further military efforts and on what terms would it be possible for Ukraine, as well as for Europe and America, to end this conflict, or rather, to get out of it?
The reality is that after many months of a media battle for a victorious narrative, even tracking various sources of information, it is difficult to reliably assess the current potential of both sides of the conflict and their ability to continue the confrontation. Naturally, extremes should be avoided: Ukraine will by no means, as some predict, be broken overnight, and help from the West will not stop abruptly either. In turn, Russia is not completely resistant to sanctions, but it is by no means exhausted by them. Yes, the spectre of fatigue from what is happening looms more and more clearly before Ukraine. And even if there is a question about the meaning of the sacrifices suffered so far – the question of the adequacy of the price paid, which also affects the activity and will of the West to support Ukrainian policy and strategy. As for the Western countries, they, first of all, realize that in the event of an Israeli-Arab war, they will not stand aside. And that Russia and China will not stay either.
In this complicated geopolitical situation, which has affected South Asia today, where the United States is competing with China as actively as possible, it is necessary to re-balance the opposing interests of players in a heavier weight category than Ukraine. I am not saying that this country has completely lost any weight, but given all the elements of the difficult international situation, for Western elites currently facing very serious challenges, the importance of Kiev will no longer be the same as before.
Author: Wojciech Golonka
