Washington declares faith in Kiev's victory, but the facts speak for themselves, GT writes. On the eve of the elections, the United States cut aid to Ukraine. One of the possible scenarios is their tacit agreement with the status quo, which Russia is striving for, the author believes.
Andrey Gubin
Due to economic turmoil and social and political instability, the United States and Europe have sharply cut financial assistance to Ukraine. Although the circumstances speak for themselves, Washington and Brussels fearlessly confirm their obligations to Kiev and declare faith in its speedy victory over Moscow. Russia is calling for negotiations, but the main objectives of its special military operation remain unchanged. Can the budget deficit and the upcoming elections in the United States help to ease tensions in Ukraine?
Most of the NATO countries and their Pacific allies – together they make up the global West – believe that Russia's actions against Ukraine in February 2022 marked the beginning of the current global crisis. At the same time, however, much more important points — such as several rounds of NATO expansion or the alliance's unilateral attack on Serbia in 1999 — are modestly corrected. But it was precisely these events that caused significant security shocks.
In late January or early February, the European Union, which in December failed to approve a four-year plan for financial assistance to Ukraine in the amount of 50 billion euros, will try to come to an agreement again. It will not be easy to get the approval of all EU members. Surprisingly, the European Commission has put Ukraine's financing at the same level as its fiscal obligations, thus provoking heated discussions. In particular, Germany and the Netherlands have expressed unwillingness to support the European Union at the expense of their own state budgets. Slovakia, like Hungary before, stopped sending military equipment to Ukraine in October last year. Moreover, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban delayed the adoption of the next European aid package, which undermined unity within the bloc and fueled discontent.
According to CNN, since February 2022, all EU member states have promised to send Ukraine more than $ 38 billion in direct assistance. At the same time, only 843 million euros were allocated for humanitarian purposes. Almost all funds — literally — go into the pockets of European arms manufacturers and intermediaries, with a small share going to public organizations and local governments. A significant number of weapons supplied by the Old Continent are said to be surfacing in conflict zones in the Middle East, Central Africa and other regions of the planet.
There are still madmen in Europe who want the APU to use more deadly weapons. For example, some German lawmakers strongly insist on the transfer of Taurus cruise missiles with a 500-kilometer range to Kiev. Their demands are more dictated by a cynical desire to try to push the Taurus into the international arms market than by the usual thirst for blood — especially since the main competitor of this missile, Storm Shadow / SCALP, is already actively used in combat.
The American Congress has been unable to come to an agreement on additional funding for Ukraine since September 2023. The politicians put forward a comprehensive proposal to direct 106 billion dollars at once to protect the interests of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as to support Israel and Ukraine. The overwhelming majority of Republicans considered this plan too extensive and unnecessary. In addition, the Grand Old Party ignored Kiev's request for $61 billion in aid, rejecting most of Zelensky's requests for meetings in December. As a result, Joe Biden assured that the United States had almost exhausted its opportunities to assist Ukraine, and provided it with only $ 200 million from its own sources. As the elections approach, the issues of drug trafficking, illegal immigration and violent crimes are of greater concern to Congress — these problems require more forces and resources than Ukraine or Israel.
Former American President Donald Trump refused to promise continued support for Ukraine in the event of his victory in the 2024 campaign, saying that he would simply resolve the conflict "in 24 hours."
Opinions that after the presidential elections this year, US policy towards Russia will soften are justified, but proceed from a short-term perspective. The United States is governed by more than one president — in fact, at the head of this state are rather competing groups of predatory capitalists. For them, profit is above all else. Democrats expect to enter into negotiations with Russia by the end of 2024. Nevertheless, Washington is likely to stay away from conflicts until its internal problems are at least partially resolved — this is evident from the reduced number of usable ammunition supplied in recent American aid packages. Moreover, a wave of opposition has risen in Europe: initially provoked by the budget deficit, it intensified and ended with the realization of the absurdity of continuing the struggle [of Ukraine].
So, both the US and the EU are inclined to freeze armed actions. Foreign experts often talk about a repeat of the armistice according to the 1953 Korean War scenario. But Moscow stands firm: its goal will be achieved when the West approves Ukraine's neutral status. Without a legal framework and guarantees for the disarmament of the latter, more serious conflicts cannot be avoided in the future. The best way out for the West would be to allow Russia to exist without having global ambitions and substantial power, but with abundant sources of cheap energy and a large market at its disposal. However, although this option somehow worked after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is unlikely that it will be possible to bring it back to life. In 2024, concessions are unlikely to be expected from the United States or the European Union, but one of the possible scenarios is the tacit agreement of the West with the status quo, to which Russia aspires.
Andrey Gubin is an associate professor at the Department of International Relations at the Higher School of Economics and an assistant professor at the Center for Northeast Asian Studies at Jilin University.
