If this first year of war has made anything clear, it is the determination with which the United States and the West have defended Ukraine. after the invasion of Russia in February last year.
To date, and according to the Kiel Institute, the “allies” have delivered more than US$110 billion in military and humanitarian aid and have implemented severe economic sanctions against Moscow that, for now, have slowed down the advance of the troops. of Vladimir Putin and given Kiev the tools to counter a vastly superior military.
According to political analyst Thomas Freidman, both the US and other European nations they understood from the beginning that what was at stake, more than the viability of a former Soviet republic, was the survival of the liberal order that arose after the end of the Second World War and that is a pillar of its own democracies.
An order -says Freidman- in which autocratic regimes such as Nazi Germany, imperial Japan or their Russian or Chinese expressions of the present “cannot be allowed to devour neighboring countries without consequences”.
But the question that everyone asks, Now that this second year of conflict begins, it is how sustainable is that determination and under what strategy.
(Also read: Zelensky asks his allies for combat planes on his second trip abroad).
The future of western aid
The answer, at least in the short term, is that the alliance will hold firm. Especially now that Russia is apparently preparing a new offensive this spring in the south and east of the country.
But a look further into the future reveals possible bills.
This week during a meeting in Brussels of defense ministers from the so-called Ukraine Defense Contact Group – which includes 54 countries – as well as from the
NATO, the allies pledged to continue supporting the country now that the war appears to be entering a critical new phase.
According to the head of the US joint forces, General Mike Milley, 11 countries have already committed to sending the latest generation tanks, among them the Leopard 2 from Germany, a contingent of American Abrams and others from British and French manufacture.
(You may be interested: Why have Latin American countries refused to send weapons to Ukraine?).
Until recently sending tanks was seen as taboo as it sent a signal to escalate
Likewise, 22 countries will contribute vehicles for infantry transport as well as armored vehicles such as the M2 Bradley (from the US), the AMX-10s (French) and Marders (German).
According to Ulrich Speck, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institute, this is an important development for two reasons.
“Until very recently sending tanks was seen as taboo as it sent a signal to escalate which brought Nato closer to direct conflict with Russia. That’s already broken. The message now, based on what they’ve seen on the ground, is that they don’t fear a military that this year has proven to be quite incompetent,” Speck says.
At the same time it is a sign that The West is not interested at the moment in a negotiated exit and is preparing for a fight whose emphasis will be placed on the recovery of territory. Something in which tanks and armored vehicles will be key.
(Also: Odessa: from being a movie set to living under the risk of disappearing)
Likewise, at the meeting in Brussels, the allies promised to expand Ukraine’s anti-aircraft capabilities and redouble the production of ammunition, another vital issue since reserves have begun to run low and the volume that the Ukrainians are using to repel Russian incursions is very high.
Although President Volodimir Zelenski also continues to insist on the need for aircraft such as the F-16, this is another line that the allies have not wanted to cross for the moment but that has not been ruled out.
(In other news: With heavy tanks, the West seeks to break Russian fortifications)
As the US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said this week, in this new phase, more than planes, what Ukraine requires is batteries or anti-aircraft systems like the Patriot and infantry vehicles to counter the infusion of troops Russia is amassing on the border.
The goal, according to military sources in Washington, is to “defend the line” during the spring offensive, and to try to regain ground in the summer and fall once the tanks arrive and the Ukrainians are trained to operate them.
And in geopolitics?
That in terms of the military. However, both politically and geostrategically, other dynamics are being seen.
In the US, where Biden has been the main advocate of closing ranks on Ukraine, the war has begun to lose popular support. In the latest Morning Consult polls, just 41 percent were concerned about the invasion while another 40 percent said the US had an obligation to defend the country.
In March of last year, those numbers were 58 and 47 percent respectively.
The war, and the unconditional support of the US, could become an explosive and expensive issue
At the same time, since January 4, the Republicans have assumed control of the House of Representatives. Unlike the hawks of years past, this new movement of Republicans is much more nationalist and even critical of the war.
(You can read: Ukraine: Will the course of the war change after the arrival of tanks from the West?)
In fact, many want to reduce contributions and oppose more direct US involvement. Given that the Democrats still control the Senate and that the Republicans in the upper house are more moderate, a change of course is not foreseen, at least for now.
But the war, and the unconditional support of the US, could turn out to be an explosive and costly issue for a president who is likely to seek re-election in less than two years.
And the same would be happening in other European capitals where there is concern not only about the economic cost but also about the impact on their own war arsenals that are being diminished with each passing day.
And that, according to Gustav Gressel, of the European Council for International Relations, seems to be Putin’s new bet. “From the failure of a quick victory, Putin has gone on to a war of attrition. He is confident that the allies will lose interest due to domestic pressures and the growing demand for resources. That would open the door to control of more territory and eventual capitulation Ukraine,” says Gressel.
A point that Friedman also makes.
(Putin) is counting on the US and the West to tire of the prospect of a protracted conflict
“For the first year of this war, the United States and its allies have had it relatively easy. Imposing sanctions while providing intelligence and resources to the Ukrainians so that they do the rest and put up the dead. Now Putin what he is saying to Biden is: I cannot lose this war and I will pay any price to keep a part of Ukraine because it is the only way in which I can justify the invasion. Are you and the European allies willing to pay any price in defense of this liberal order?” says Friedman.
(Keep reading: Volunteers and foreigners fighting alongside Ukraine for revenge on Russia.)
Robert Kagan, a historian at the Brookings Institute, elaborates on this point by indicating precisely that the question posed by Putin is the same one that Hitler posed before World War II.
“Any negotiations that leave Russian forces on Ukrainian soil will only be a temporary truce before the next attempt. Putin is in the process of fully militarizing Russian society, just as Stalin did. He is in a long-term game (which others as China observe) and He is counting on the United States and the West to tire of the prospect of a protracted conflict, as has already been pointed out by isolationists on the left and right both in the US and in other countries,” says Kagan.
However, according to this expert, just as society in the middle of the last century ended up understanding the distant European conflict as a threat to its national security, sooner or later they will see a similar challenge in it.
among other things because neither the US nor the West can afford to concede defeat – or something perceived as such – after all they have already invested.
That is why, Friedman believes, that this second year promises to be even more violent, and dangerous, than the first.
More In-Depth News
Ukraine-Russia war: “Every day it becomes more difficult and dangerous to live”
Russia launches new massive attack with 36 cruise missiles on Ukraine
Ukraine: chronicle of an announced war that is far from seeing an end
SERGIO GOMEZ MASERI
WEATHER CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON
On Twitter: @Sergom68
#usa #Europe #continue #support #Ukraine #year #war