The Political Maze of the West in the Ukrainian Crisis

The war started with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is approaching its third year, with the number of casualties and civil victims increasing. The overall scenario appears increasingly precarious, with Ukrainian forces stalling on the battlefield against fortified Russians behind minefields and trenches. The lack of essential military supplies from the United States and Europe is hindering Kiev's forces on the battlefield, similar to how Hungary and North American Republicans are blocking European and U.S. aid packages, respectively. European leaders seem increasingly pessimistic about Ukraine's ability to repel Russia's military advances and reclaim lost territories in the eastern provinces of the country. On the U.S. side, Joe Biden and his administration continue to express support for Kiev, although U.S. aid to Ukraine has become a partisan and polarizing issue, with a significant number of Republicans – including former President Donald Trump – blaming the ongoing and costly military support.

On one hand, there is consideration of a change in strategy to induce Putin to negotiate, while on the other hand, there is a belief that any sign of Western weakness and insecurity could encourage the Kremlin to escalate the Russian "Special Operation". Therefore, the need for offensive action and the adequate supply of ammunition and weaponry to Ukraine seem essential elements for a development from the current stalemate.

Initiating negotiations would undoubtedly be easier with Russia in a disadvantaged position; hence, prior support to Ukraine is crucial, avoiding paving the way for Putin to engage in conflicts even closer to NATO borders. In this context, Europe should intensify its commitment by increasing military production and providing greater quantities of war material to Ukrainian forces: medium and long-range cruise missiles to enable Ukraine to target Russian infrastructure in the occupied areas, simultaneously protecting frontline soldiers from danger. Furthermore, establishing air superiority with air defense systems and F-16 fighters is crucial.

On December 27, the U.S. Department of State presented the latest package of military aid for Ukraine in 2023, while legislators continue to negotiate a budget agreement that would ensure support to Kiev in the new year. The new package includes a wide range of ammunition and weaponry amounting to about $250 million. This hesitation on the part of the main Western supplier of arms to Ukraine has spread concern and perplexity among many European leaders.

Returning to Europe, following Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's veto on an agreement to provide Ukraine with a total of 50 billion euros in loans (33 billion) and non-repayable grants (17 billion), the European Union has decided to devise a contingency strategy. In fact, it seems that the European Commission may borrow from the capital markets the funds detached from the EU budget, all thanks to guarantees from Member States with the best credit ratings. The final verdict will be established on February 2 following the extraordinary summit of EU heads of state and government, but the accessible amount is estimated to be around 20 billion euros in loans. A change of course by Hungary would be desirable, catalyzing the arrival of support to Kiev, but if not, EU countries and the European Commission may bypass the unanimity of the 27.

The vague and incremental current strategy of supporting Kiev makes it difficult to believe that a clear outcome can be achieved. Ukraine needs a decisive approach and a clear goal from Europe to shift the balance back in favor of Ukraine. Reducing support to Ukraine would further weaken the Western negotiating position in anticipation of a hypothetical negotiation.

Mondo Internazionale APS - All Rights Reserved ® 2023

Translated by Stefania Errico