Joe Biden’s late decision to allow Ukraine to launch long-range US missiles into Russian territory, apparently in response to Vladimir Putin’s deployment of North Korean troops to the Kursk region, boosted Kiev’s morale. But this did not change the rules of the game in the war of attrition.
There is a theory that Trump may cut US aid to Ukraine to impose an unjust peace. European countries therefore urgently need a strategy to respond to this prospect, according to The Guardian’s editorial board.
However, shaping such a strategy will require political clarity and leadership in the face of multiple challenges. The group also believes that Moscow’s November 21 launch of a hypersonic ballistic missile over the city of Dnipro – albeit with a conventional warhead – was aimed at impressing European voters who fear a further escalation of the war.
“In the event of a change in US policy towards Ukraine, Europe should take the initiative in supporting Ukraine, both militarily and financially. This also includes strengthening the position of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy should negotiations take place and ensuring that Europe’s voice is heard on the international stage,” the paper said.
The publication adds that after Trump’s inauguration, European countries will likely be the ones who will have to keep Ukraine strong. After all, support for Kyiv is crucial for Europe’s security.
Ukraine is not considered “Europe”
The last month has been difficult for Ukraine: Russia has brought more than 11,000 troops from North Korea to regain control of the Kursk region. Russia has also disrupted Ukraine’s energy grid with renewed vigor and launched new experimental medium-range weapons on the Dnipro River.
However, after all this, Western policy on the war is best described as incrementalism – a gradual supply of weapons that keeps the situation afloat but does not give Ukraine the ability to drive Russia from its territory, says James Nixey, who heads the Russia-Eurasia program at Chatham House.
First, increasing support for Ukraine would be much more expensive – spending on defense, arms deliveries, and keeping the Ukrainian economy and society functioning. Democratic governments, dependent on their voters, don’t like to be told this.
The second reason is the fear of escalation. When Russia recently launched an “experimental” ballistic missile, the United States, in particular, was reluctant to respond. The Biden administration was apparently spooked by Russia’s nuclear threats and the renewal of its nuclear doctrine.
Nixey argues that in the eight years between the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the West provided a minuscule amount of military equipment and its sanctions against Russia were negligible.
“When the invasion started, Germany only provided helmets. His tanks did not arrive until a year later. F-16 fighter jets started flying (in Ukraine) only in August of this year. And British Storm Shadow missiles could not be launched on Russian territory until last week,” adds the author.
The author believes that if the West had provided weapons before the invasion and authorized their proper use immediately afterward, Ukraine would undoubtedly be in a better position today. It is not certain that Ukraine would have rejected Russia from its territory. But it is not even certain that Russia would have invaded at all if Ukraine had been better armed.
There is another reason why the West has not done all it could. Nixey argues that if it had been Portugal or France, the Allies would have done everything to protect these countries as much as possible. Ukraine, however, is not considered “Europe” and its needs are easier to ignore.
Source: ziare.com
