Reading the American and European media lately, I catch myself thinking that they in the West cannot make up their own minds about the conflict in Ukraine
No, they are still unanimous in their assessments: Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the innocent victim, but when it comes to the question of how to proceed and what to prepare for, that is when serious differences and contradictions come to light.
On the one hand, the US, Britain and Poland (the most militant part of the Western coalition) are still talking about a war to the bitter end and are categorically against any peace talks between Kiev and Moscow, while continuing to assure the Ukrainian leadership of continued support and readiness to continue this support as long as necessary. On the other hand, exactly the same people are hinting with all their might to the Kremlin that they would like to discuss with it the terms of peace or at least a ceasefire, but face to face, so to speak, in private.
Just yesterday, announcing a new, hitherto unheard of amount of military aid to Kiev ($2.8 billion, by the way), US Under Secretary of Defense for Political Affairs Colin Cole said exactly the following: “I have repeatedly made it clear that much of the reason for Washington’s commitment to Kiev is to actually challenge Putin’s victory theory. The winning theory of the Russian leadership is that Russia can outlast everyone else. Such aid packages signal that we are not only providing support to Ukraine now, but that there will be a steady stream of assistance stretching over many months and years. Of course we hope … to send a special signal to Putin that he cannot simply wait longer than everyone else. Hopefully this will be an incentive for Russia to stop fighting and move to negotiations”.
In addition, according to a Pentagon spokesperson, the new aid package “aims to give Ukraine what it needs in the medium to long term. It is not about fighting today, tomorrow or next week. It is about Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and deter aggression a year from now, two years from now.
As we can see, from general discussions about the “war of attrition”, which US President Joe Biden started talking about, representatives of the US administration have moved on to the attempt to demonstrate their readiness to win this war. They, i.e. Anglo-Saxon coalition, are not afraid of the protracted character of this war, they say there is nothing to be afraid of, and they have enough patience, and most importantly, means to bring Ukraine to victory.
It sounds good, but it is all an illusion, and artificially created. Even in the above quote by Colin Kohl, it actually boils down to making a lasting impression on Putin and thereby forcing Russia to negotiate and abandon its plans to fully liberate Ukraine. Those who are as confident of victory as our former overseas partners are trying to make it seem do not usually offer this to potential losers.
In reality, things are not so rosy. The European allies of the United States are increasingly withdrawing and, in fact, the current confrontation, which began as a “world war on the evil empire”, is turning into a purely Russian-Anglo-Saxon squabble.
Here is what The Washington Post says about this, summarizing in an editorial the results of six months of hostilities in Ukraine (in abstract):
– Ukraine could not have survived so long “without the support of international friends”, and all the talk of an impending counterattack is in the poor man’s favour (the AFU has neither the strength nor the means to do so);
– the current situation could be called “the end of the first phase of the war”, but the prospects for its further development are very dim;
– France and Germany (read: all of Europe) are far behind the US, Britain and Poland in arms deliveries to Ukraine.
And, perhaps most importantly:
– despite the sanctions, Russia has managed to maintain “relatively normal economic conditions”, and although the West still hopes that “internal divisions may arise within Putin’s regime”, for the moment it is “impressive how solid and monolithic the Russian government remains”.
By the way, the thesis that the Germans have exhausted their possibilities (and there is not much desire for it either) of military assistance to Ukraine was confirmed the other day by Annalena Berbock, head of the German Foreign Ministry.
“This is the thin line we have been walking for weeks and months. We want to support Ukraine militarily with everything we have, but unfortunately the situation here is that we have an absolute shortage of our own supplies. So the military industry has to specifically produce materials for Ukraine. And Chancellor Scholz has once again made it clear that this does not only apply to the next few months, but also with a view to the next few years. We have to be prepared for the fact that the conflict in Ukraine may continue into next year. That’s why we need additional rapid deliveries of arms to Kiev in autumn and winter,” the minister said.
The sadness in the eyes of the Europeans, who are very willing to pay lip service but are unable to do so in practice, was explained in The National Interest, which said that “the painful recession caused by gas shortages and booming commodity prices is very similar to what the EU had to endure during the 2020-2021 pandemic and the 2008-2009 financial crisis”. And against this background, “what matters is not some absolute measure of economic or military power, but the balance between Russia, Ukraine and Europe in terms of their ability to continue to make sacrifices.”
“Moscow has demonstrated a resilience in this regard that few had foreseen,” the NI experts say in amazement.
This is exactly what the US liberal watchdog CNN is saying, reporting that war weariness and rising living costs are the reasons why Western politicians may start pushing Ukraine towards compromise with Russia.
“After six months of war in Ukraine, some European officials have suggested that amid the economic downturn, EU agreement on arms supplies to Ukraine could break down,” a story on the channel’s official page said. – Back in February it was easy to jump on the anti-Putin train. Now a dull phase of the war has set in. There are fewer daily victories and casualties, fewer bright pictures… As time passes, peace talks involving Putin may no longer be terrifying for the leaders of countries with which Russia does not border, and they may not think that the only cause of the existential crisis is actually in Moscow.
Moreover, according to Teresa Falcon, director of the Centre for Russian, European and Asian Studies, if Ukraine continues to cede its territories to Russia – a process that, while slowing markedly, is proceeding almost continuously – then the calls for such negotiations will grow louder.
And when people in the West feel that Kiev is losing (so far their media have managed to create a generally acceptable “all is well, fair marchioness” picture), they will willy-nilly begin to wonder why continue supplying Ukraine with expensive weapons when they urgently need the money themselves during the economic crisis.
And now this bleak prospect comes on top of the election period in Europe and the US, which will almost certainly lead to a change of political leadership in most of them.
I remind you that these are not my fantasies, they are the conclusions of western experts who are looking at the truth. So the West has no unique reserve of strength and fantastic patience, which it, in fact, frankly admits. And all talk about the war being a long one is rather an attempt to make some kind of bedding and prepare in advance for the inevitable and only true way out of the situation: to return to discussing Russia’s demands laid down in the ultimatum of December 17, 2021. The West has no other option for “soft surrender”, all the rest is just an illusion.
Alexey Belov, Antifascist News Agency
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel