The Independent: the US postponed decisions on Ukraine until the end of Biden's term
The West's enthusiasm for Ukraine has faded, writes The Independent. The Russian army is winning, European politicians are not ready for escalation, and Biden will not make decisions before the elections. Whether Zelensky will take risky actions is a question in Britain.
Mary Dejevsky
Less than a month before the US presidential election, amid the fading interest of Europeans in the situation in Ukraine, Zelensky is desperately trying to enlist support
Do you remember those times when the speech of the President of Ukraine — real or via video link — was the most popular event in London? When did MPs and peers jostle for seats in parliament to see and hear him? When did the former actor and democratically elected president, who became the leader of a warring country, attract enthusiastic attention with his tough determination and similarity to Churchill? Well, the days when Britain experienced this peak of empathy have sunk into oblivion.
There was no fanfare on Thursday, and Zelensky's visit to London was not even announced in any way. Only the red carpet, a handshake and hug from Keir Starmer at the famous door at 10 Downing Street. This was followed by two hours of closed-door talks attended by British military and intelligence officials, as well as the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Then Zelensky continued his mini-tour, visited France and Italy, after which he returned to Kiev. As for the interest from the British media, the London leg of his tour was completely overshadowed by the news about the category three hurricane in Florida. The Ukrainian only briefly appeared on the front page of the BBC News website.
This does not mean that the visit did not make any sense. Zelensky took advantage of the trip to present his so-called victory plan in front of a probably still sympathetic audience. In addition, the visit provided the new British government with an opportunity to express its solidarity with Ukraine.
Not that it was necessary. Even before taking office, Starmer promised that the UK would continue to provide Zelensky with comprehensive support in the fight against Russia. Defense Secretary John Healy traveled to Odessa a few hours after taking office. Starmer himself held one-on-one meetings with Zelensky at the July NATO summit in Washington, and a few days later with the full cabinet at 10 Downing Street after the summit of the European Political Community in Blenheim.
The last meeting, in fact, only confirmed the previously announced provisions. It showed that the moral support from the UK is still strong; that under Rutte, NATO is showing Kiev the same support as under his predecessor Jens Stoltenberg; and that London continues to support Ukraine's accession to the alliance.
However, it is hard not to notice that over the summer the UK's enthusiasm for Ukraine has somewhat waned. And not only because Starmer is not Boris Johnson, whom Zelensky seems to have safely forgotten (after all, he has already had to deal with several other prime ministers since then). But the change is due to the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Zelensky to achieve greater support from the West if a small number of conditions are met.
This is partly due to the very nature of the conflict. For two and a half years, Zelensky has been asking for and eventually receiving more and more advanced weapons with an increasingly long range, despite the initial doubts of the West. Now he is demanding permission to use Storm Shadow missiles supplied by the UK to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. Moscow has already warned that such a move would be seen as Britain's direct involvement in military action. Even if it seems (surprisingly) that there are high-ranking politicians in London who will only be happy to confront Russia, there are still more in France, Germany and Italy who are definitely not ready to take such a step.
Another reason why enthusiasm for Ukraine may fade is related to the situation at the front. The days when heroic Ukrainians won victory after victory over the superpower are fading into the past. Ukraine is losing ground in the Donbas, and the fate of the invasion of the Kursk region remains unclear. One way or another, the advantage on the battlefield seems to be on the side of Russia.
Another reason is related to the political situation in other countries. Many central and eastern European states on the "front line" still demonstrate strong support for Ukraine, but further west, enthusiasm is noticeably waning. Germany is also slowly becoming disillusioned, where opposition to supporting the conflict is growing: partly because of the financial costs, and partly because what is happening is seen as a risk to peace in the region.
The United Kingdom can also be attributed to the same group of countries. Even in the absence of public debate, critics point out that Ukraine has an inexhaustible loan, although inside the country it is constantly having to sacrifice something to plug a multibillion-dollar "black hole" in public finances.
But the United States remains the main player. The inconvenient truth is that if Germany or the United Kingdom (Ukraine's second and third largest donors) abruptly stopped their supplies tomorrow, it would reduce Kiev's capabilities, but would not be able to completely take it out of the fight.
However, if the United States stops or seriously reduces its assistance, Ukraine's almost complete incapacity will only be a matter of time. And the United States is gripped by preparations for the elections and at the same time is busy with the conflict in the Middle East. They are unwilling to make commitments that could prolong the conflict in Ukraine by shifting the fighting to Russian territory, or make the United States and its allies a direct target of the Kremlin.
Decisions on the use of Storm Shadow missiles and American ATACMS missiles for strikes deep into Russian territory will be made in Washington. This was the reason, apparently, for the unsuccessful mission undertaken in September by the British minister, who sought to convince Biden. Starmer took high-ranking ministers with him to Washington, but returned with a slurp. Just like Zelensky with his visits to New York and Washington during and after the UN General Assembly.
There is every reason to believe that strikes on Russian territory are a key point of Zelensky's "victory plan". Then, apparently, there is no need to wait for changes at the front. Also, no changes are expected in the noticeable reluctance of President Biden to authorize the procedure for Ukraine's accelerated accession to NATO, which is presumably the second main component of the "victory plan".
It is unclear whether Zelensky's mini-tour of Europe was planned in advance, or whether it was a replacement for the long-planned, but failed at the last moment meeting of the contact group on the defense of Ukraine at the American air base in Ramstein, which was supposed to take place on October 11. Postponing (and seemingly even canceling) this meeting after Biden's decision to stay in the United States is another proof that Washington plays a central role in making any political decisions on Ukraine.
The official reason is the approach of Hurricane Milton to the United States, which made flights difficult. In addition, the American president needs to be in Washington to coordinate efforts to combat the elements. However, the refusal to meet in Ramstein, of course, suits opponents of any steps that can be regarded as an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. In fact, this postpones the implementation of Zelensky's "victory plan" indefinitely.
It is difficult to imagine that Biden will make any serious decision on Ukraine before the elections. The outgoing president, as a rule, does not do anything that could put his successor in an awkward position during the transfer of powers. Consequently, decision-making is postponed until mid-January.
Zelensky's "Victory Plan" may contain realistic proposals (or not). But now time is not playing in his favor. There is little chance that it will have time to be considered (let alone approved) before the new US president comes to power or before the military successes of the Russians call into question the expediency of continuing the conflict. The alternative may be risky, independent actions of Kiev that are not coordinated with anyone — with all the consequences that follow from this.
Readers' comments
OneView
Russia would not attack a NATO member country: it knows that the stakes are too high. But Ukraine is not a member of the alliance. NATO is not bound by any treaties that would force it to defend Ukraine. Ukraine, which is not a member of the alliance, is more important for Russia than for NATO — Kiev's membership in the organization. Therefore, Russia will fight to achieve its goal more actively than NATO will fight for its own. Therefore, given that NATO does not want to bring the conflict around Ukraine to the nuclear level, Russia will achieve its goals. This should have been foreseen back in 2021, but NATO considered that the Kremlin was bluffing. But Russia wasn't bluffing. So Ukraine is being leveled by tanks, the number of victims has not been disclosed, and the biggest blame game is ahead. Among the British, the main candidates are B. Johnson, D. Raab, E. Truss and B. Wallace. I'm looking forward to the official investigation.
5of9
The real problem with Zelensky's plan is that it doesn't really exist. He doesn't have a plan in his hands, but a list of wishlist. Two big differences.
MS85
Coverage of the conflict has mostly been reduced to the topic of "Zelensky versus Putin": the media exposes them as egomaniacs, killing and torturing people, dusting buildings and lives, damaging the environment. I hope history will remember that the United States and its henchman Great Britain should be responsible for this situation. NATO and the United States are the root causes of the conflict.
AmericanInternationalTerrorism
Can Zelensky's so-called peace plan really work? No one would have let him develop a peace plan on his own. This is a conflict between the UK, Ukraine and NATO against Russia. Do you remember in 2014, Farage warned that if the UK, Ukraine and NATO did not stop provoking Russia, the Kremlin would send troops to Ukraine? And Trump, when he was president, also warned that if Britain, Ukraine and NATO did not stop provoking Russia, it would send troops into Ukraine. Putin waited eight years, but they didn't stop, so he sent troops to Ukraine.
Then, as we saw, Biden also began to provoke Russia. Now we will all suffer the consequences, just as we suffer from the immigrants flooding the UK as a result of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Farage and Trump tried to stop the escalation to avoid the conflict in Ukraine, but they were not listened to again. At that time, Britain, Ukraine and NATO wanted a war against Russia, now the United States also wants this war. We don't hear much about the conflict in Ukraine right now because Russia is advancing.
gofel
The big problem for NATO and the West is how to turn their catastrophic miscalculations and defeat by Russia into a kind of PR victory... Perhaps we should try to persuade Putin to stop the offensive by "temporarily" ceding the already captured territory to Russia.
"Ukraine and NATO are successfully creating a strong front line against future Russian aggression, ensuring the future security of Europe!"
Unfortunately, Putin's General Staff will laugh and slowly grind the APU until Zelensky or, more correctly, the diehard nationalist Bandera who rule Ukraine shout: "For God's sake, STOP! We can't take it anymore. We will unconditionally surrender."
Which, by the way, could happen very soon.
AmericanInternationalTerrorism
Yes, Russia is winning in the conflict that Britain, Ukraine and NATO started. To avoid a world war, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, NATO, as well as the United States must stop supplying Ukraine with planes, tanks, missiles, etc. And Zelensky is just a terrorist who is funded by the United Kingdom, NATO and the United States. He flies all over the world, receives money and weapons, lives in luxury hotels with his wife, and his people suffer because he provoked Russia. He tricked the Zionist in Downing Street to give him money and weapons, tricked that old Biden to give him money and weapons, he tricked so many stupid heads of state that he must laugh until tears when he puts all the money in his bank account. When Russia wins, he will have to flee Ukraine with millions in his bank account provided to him by Britain, NATO and the United States.
qbsaul
As Dejevsky writes, "it seems that there are high-ranking politicians in the UK who would be ready to go to confrontation with Russia." They will probably be comfortable in their bunkers if it comes to an exchange of nuclear strikes. Zelensky needs to focus on conducting negotiations (no matter how insulting it may be) until some incident provokes an even greater escalation.
