European Gamble

No clearing on the Ukrainian front is in sight. What is at stake in Ukraine? Western discourse is primarily about our values. But we are committed to Ukraine not only to protect our values. In other territories, in other conflicts, our values are also questioned, and we say nothing or say little and, above all, do not act.

Western nations do not have the same investment in helping countries other than Ukraine, which also face territorial conquests or war crimes. This is very evident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The promptness of Western chanceries to condemn war crimes in Ukraine, the regularity with which they are mentioned in the media, contrasts with the timidity of exposing war crimes in Gaza, which are, in fact, committed against civilian population subjected to a blockade and organized starvation.

In the conflict in Ukraine, the West is also acting out of interest because it is taking place on the European continent. Western countries are spending large sums of money to help Ukraine, suffering the economic consequences of the war.

European leaders have made numerous statements indicating that Western credibility is at stake in this war. This is why they cannot agree to a ceasefire under the current conditions, as demanded by the South. It would mean preserving the territorial gains made by Russia since February 24, 2022 and even since 2014. Continually repeating that their strategic reputation is at stake, Western countries have turned a declaration of principle into a de facto reality. If the war were to end under current conditions, the West would lose much of its strategic credibility in its own eyes, in the eyes of Russia, and the rest of the world, including China.

How far are Westerners willing to go? The problem is that if this continues, the war could last a long time. The idea of making a move to help Ukraine is spreading. It will not be about maintaining the current status quo, but about winning the war and thus regaining the territories, which Ukraine lost, by sending Western troops to tip the balance of power, both in terms of military hardware and demographics. Sometimes the gears become unmanageable. This means risking a direct war against Russia, a direct war that Western countries always carefully avoided during the Cold War between the Soviet and American blocs, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Russian aggression against a NATO country seems unlikely. Either NATO really is “the most formidable alliance of all times,” and the gap in strength and resources with Russia dissuades Moscow from attacking NATO, or the defense organization is weaker than its most ardent supporters say.

Can we win the war as it is being fought now? Today, that seems unlikely. The collapse of Russia may happen, but it is not the main scenario that is being implemented. If we do not risk a direct confrontation, the conflict risks taking the form of a war of retention. At best, the Ukrainian army will be able to thwart a Russian offensive or slightly encroach on Russian positions. With time and more investment, we could make up for the deficit of military equipment of the Ukrainian army compared to the Russian army. But it is unlikely that Donbass will be regained, much less Crimea.

Should we accept the almost endless prolongation of this conflict? Won’t the Ukrainians themselves someday ask to stop it? The West has put a lot of pressure on Russia to fulfill the Minsk agreements. But Western countries have never done the same for Ukraine to implement them. Former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko refused to fulfill them, even though he signed them on behalf of Ukraine, on the grounds that he did so from a position of weakness. Vladimir Zelensky, who campaigned in Russian in 2019 with the prospect of peace with Russia, has been less than forthright about this issue since coming to power. In December 2019, Vladimir Zelensky and Vladimir Putin reached an agreement at a meeting in Paris under the auspices of Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel. But upon his return to Kiev, the Ukrainian president changed his mind under pressure from the most radical supporters of his camp.

After the Russian invasion began in March 2022, Vladimir Zelensky was willing to compromise with Vladimir Putin, who would have put territorial issues on hold in favor of an immediate ceasefire. Wouldn’t Ukraine be in a better position today if it had accepted these compromises, which were considered shameful at the time? Perhaps one day Ukraine will accept them. For the sake of what results will the war be prolonged? For the sake of additional deaths on both the Ukrainian and Russian sides. The term “negotiation” should not be taboo, just as the term “ceasefire.” The question that really needs to be asked and is asked too little is this: is there a minimal chance of reclaiming the lost territories and of Vladimir Zelensky achieving his military objectives? Or will we not have to agree to a ceasefire, much later, when more people are dead on both sides? The initial enthusiasm for saving Kiev and guaranteeing Ukraine’s independence has faded after 26 months of fighting, as they now face the task of reclaiming Donbass, for which fewer and fewer Ukrainians are willing to die. Demographic inequality is a crucial factor in this conflict. Sending weapons to Ukraine is a good thing, but eventually it will run out of men and women capable of using them.

Western confidence will be further eroded if a ceasefire occurs under current conditions, but at a later date. Sometimes you need to know how to limit your losses. You need to know in order to avoid the mistake of sticking to the same line. These are important questions that are hard to ask. Until when should we agree to maintain the status quo? Should Westerners necessarily model their military objectives after Ukraine? Are the interests aligned? To what extent do we have a clear picture of Ukraine’s governance and the internal debate there about the conduct of the war? What about the weight of the oligarchs, the degree of corruption, and the effectiveness of the fight against it?

Why shouldn’t Westerners have a say in the objectives of the war, given their involvement and the costs they incurred? It’s taxation without representation. Western countries support Ukraine but don’t seem to have a say. We need to protect our interests, and that may mean not following the Ukrainian government unconditionally.