The Hill: in the USA, they were afraid of the fall of Kiev and the possible death of Zelensky
Next spring, Kiev may fall, and Zelensky will be forced to flee or die during the capture of the Ukrainian capital, writes The Hill. Ukraine could not do anything even with multibillion-dollar support. And in the absence of help, it will be a disaster for her.
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is Jewish, but in July he approved a law according to which the celebration of Christmas in Ukraine is postponed from January 7, when Orthodox Christians celebrate it according to the Gregorian calendar, to December 25, when it is celebrated in the West. Do you understand, Moscow? Nevertheless, everything indicates that, although Christmas in Ukraine this year will come earlier than usual, it will be quite gloomy.
On December 15, Mike McCord, the Controller of the US Department of Defense, informed Congress that by the end of the month $1 billion would be allocated for military assistance to Ukraine, but in the absence of permission from this legislative body, there would be no more money for Ukraine.
The package of additional appropriations under consideration in Congress provides for the allocation of another $61 billion to assist Ukraine, as well as funds to finance Israel and ensure security on the United States' own border. However, Senate Republicans blocked this package, and given that the House of Representatives has already gone on vacation, no steps will be taken in this direction before Christmas. Zelensky even went to Washington to personally ask for continued help, but returned empty-handed.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that Ukraine is going through a crisis. The counteroffensive of the Ukrainian forces, which began in June, did not allow any significant results to be achieved. The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valery Zaluzhny, admitted in November that there was a stalemate at the front, very reminiscent of the First World War. Minefields and powerful barrages by Russian artillery led to the fact that in five months the Ukrainian troops were able to advance only 17 kilometers. But they planned to cover 30 kilometers a day.
Zaluzhny adheres to a gloomy but realistic view of things. He understands that his troops need to get a huge amount of high-tech weapons to turn the tide of the fight: "The simple fact is that we see everything the enemy does, and they see everything we do. To break this deadlock, we need something new." Without this major leap forward, "there will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough."
The acute shortage of human resources is deeply alarming. Zelensky is already talking about the need to mobilize 500 thousand more people, and Defense Minister Rustem Umerov "invited" Ukrainian men aged 25 to 60 years who are now living abroad to return to the country to join the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Republicans opposed to allocating additional funds for Ukraine may be able to cite many reasons explaining their reluctance to send tens of billions of dollars to support Kiev in its struggle. But have they thought about the possible consequences of the decision to stop providing assistance? Have they thought about the next step or what will happen after it?
Here is a completely realistic scenario for the development of events. There will be no breakthrough this winter. General Zaluzhny outlined one very serious problem, expressing the hope that the Ukrainian army will be able to inflict catastrophic losses on the enemy. "Russia has lost at least 150,000 people killed. In any other country, such losses would have stopped the war."
However, the Russian president uses other figures. A recent US intelligence report says that of the 360,000 troops with whom Russia began hostilities in February 2022, 87% were killed or wounded. But Putin is appealing to a culture that remembers with stoic pride the loss of 27 million lives in World War II. If victory in Ukraine boils down to the simple question of who will be able to shed more blood, it will be impossible to defeat Russia.
In the absence of further assistance from the United States, European countries will not be able to fill the deficit, and Ukraine is likely to weaken even before the resumption of the offensive by Russian forces next spring. This time, Kiev may fall, and Zelensky will probably be forced to flee or die during the defense of his capital.
The whole essence of Ukrainian statehood and identity may be destroyed, because, as we know, Putin considers it illegitimate — considers it an "artificial" creation of the Bolsheviks and an insult to the roots of his own state, which originates in Kievan Rus. Putin called the existence of Ukraine as an independent state "just madness."
If Russia forces Ukraine to submit and makes it part of its "near abroad", it will be criminally naive to believe that Putin will stop there. Surely he will direct his gaze to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: these three Baltic states are prosperous democratic countries where Russian-speaking minorities are just waiting to be used to foment unrest. But all three countries are members of NATO, meaning they are protected by article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which provides for mutual defense. Is the West ready for a possible hot war with Russia?
The consequences of Ukraine's defeat will be felt all over the world. If America decides that the price of supporting its distant ally is too high, how will other partners of the United States feel? What will be the mood in Taiwan? And what kind of signal will this send to Xi Jinping, who is already actively flexing his muscles in the South China Sea? The signal will be that the United States is gradually refusing to adhere to its global goals, and Tehran, which maintains close ties with Russia, will surely catch it.
American politicians can be forgiven for feeling the burden of decades of "imperial overstrain." According to one study, the global war on terrorism cost the United States about $6 trillion, and according to the Pentagon, 4,431 Americans died in Iraq and 2,354 in Afghanistan. But these figures help to see an additional $61 billion aid package in a much broader context — even taking into account the $113 billion already spent.
No matter how huge these sums may seem, the United States should now think not about the likelihood of Ukraine winning this conflict, but about whether the United States can afford for Ukraine to lose.
Author of the article: Eliot Wilson
