By Mykola Bielieskov
The annual NATO summit in early July resulted in a range of encouraging statements and practical measures in support of Ukraine. However, this widely anticipated gathering in Washington DC failed to produce the kind of decisive steps that could convince Vladimir Putin to end his invasion.
It was already clear some time before the NATO summit that there would be no serious discussion of a membership invitation for Ukraine. Instead, the emphasis would be on improving the existing partnership, with alliance leaders preserving as much room to maneuver as possible when dealing with the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Post-summit coverage focused on the official communique declaring Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to future NATO membership, but not everyone saw the wording of the joint statement as a breakthrough. Indeed, some skeptics interpreted this latest rephrasing of NATO’s open door for Ukraine as an indication that the alliance is still no closer to agreeing on a specific time frame regarding Ukrainian membership.
The summit was not a complete anticlimax, of course. A number of countries pledged additional air defense systems to Ukraine, meeting one of Kyiv’s most urgent requests to help protect the country from Russian bombardment. There were announcements regarding the imminent arrival of the first F-16 fighter jets in Ukraine, while additional mechanisms to coordinate weapons deliveries and enhance cooperation were unveiled.
NATO members also agreed in Washington to allocate forty billion euros for Ukrainian military aid next year. While this figure is certainly significant, it falls far below the level of funding needed to ensure Ukrainian victory. This is not a new issue. While the collective GDP of the West dwarfs Russia’s, Western leaders have yet to mobilize their financial resources to provide Ukraine with an overwhelming military advantage. As a consequence, it is the much smaller Russian economy that is currently producing more artillery shells than the entire Western world.
The modest progress made at the NATO summit reflects a lack of urgency that has hampered the Western response ever since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. There is little chance this hesitancy will provoke a change of heart in Moscow. On the contrary, Russian policymakers are far more likely to regard the West’s current posture as proof that the war is going according to plan.
Unlike the West, the Kremlin has a clear and coherent vision for a future Russian victory in Ukraine. This involves gradually wearing down Ukrainian battlefield resistance with relentless high intensity combat along the front lines of the war, while extensively bombing civilian infrastructure and population centers across the country.
In parallel to these military measures, Russia will also continue to conduct diverse influence operations targeting Ukrainian and Western audiences, with the goal of undermining morale and sowing division. This will leave Ukraine increasingly isolated and exhausted, leading eventually to collapse and capitulation.
The Russian authorities believe Ukraine will struggle to maintain the attention of its Western allies, and are encouraged by growing signs that many in the West now view the invasion as a stalemate. Putin himself appears to be more confident that ever that the West will lose interest in the war, and expects Western leaders to reluctantly pressure Kyiv into a negotiated settlement on Russian terms.
Since the invasion began nearly two and a half years ago, Western leaders have failed to demonstrate the kind of resolve that would force Putin to revise his expectations. Instead of flooding Kyiv with the very latest tanks, jets, drones, and missiles, Ukraine’s partners have consistently slow-walked military aid while imposing absurd restrictions on the use of Western weapons.
The West’s messaging has been equally inadequate. Rather than publicly committing themselves to Ukrainian victory, Western leaders have spoken of preventing Ukrainian defeat and of standing with Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” This is not the language of strength that Putin understands.
Confronted by continued signs of Western indecisiveness, the Russian dictator is now escalating his demands. His most recent peace proposal envisaged Ukraine ceding all lands already occupied by Russia along with significant additional territory not currently under Kremlin control. There can be little doubt that he remains as committed as ever to the complete surrender and subjugation of Ukraine.
Putin knows he could not hope to match the collective might of the democratic world, but this does not discourage him. Instead, he fully expects continued Western weakness to hand Russia an historic victory in Ukraine. Unless the West is finally prepared to translate its vast financial, military, and technical potential into war-winning support for Ukraine, he may be proved right.
Mykola Bielieskov is a research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and a senior analyst at Ukrainian NGO “Come Back Alive.” The views expressed in this article are the author’s personal position and do not reflect the opinions or views of NISS or Come Back Alive.
…………………..
“PRINCE MICHAEL OF LIECHTENSTEIN” (never heard of him), has published a curious OpEd that is in parts quite disagreeable. Nevertheless, it does make some pertinent points.
Extract :
“It is grotesque that more than 500 million Europeans (including the United Kingdom) need 340 million Americans to defend them against 145 million Russians.
The lesson from Ukraine should be that Europe has a choice between maintaining a credible defense or becoming a battlefield for various aggressors.
The foolish words now heard in European capitals – that countries have to “prepare” for a Trump presidency – are unbearable. Europe must prepare to credibly counter the threats facing the continent, independent of the U.S.”
Europe has also to prepare for challenges from the south, the Arctic and outer space.
Geopolitical facts arrive in Europe
COMMENT BY PRINCE MICHAEL OF LIECHTENSTEIN
READING TIME: 3 MIN
Only Europe’s own capabilities — and not the identity of the American president — can ensure its security in a dangerous world.
Comment from Martin Vrecko on LinkedIn:
We in Europe have had more than ten years to prepare, but of all the major centres of power (the US, China, India, Russia…) we have the worst defence capabilities. If China decides to replenish Russian weapons stockpiles, we are doomed >
By staging attacks in France and block all the train traffic around Paris during the Olympic Games…………………
Putin and Peskov can go and fuck themselves!
It doesn’t help that Zelensky has announced that he’s preparing for land-for-peace negotiations. He’s worried about Trump and the recent poll showing a spike in the number of Ukrainians willing to trade land for peace. He’s only showing weakness. He never should have called Tump. By the way, the poll asks the wrong question. Instead of asking whether Ukraine should trade land for “peace,” it should ask whether Ukraine should trade land for “Putin’s PROMISE of peace.”
As far as I am aware, Zel has not deviated from his 10 point plan.
Do you have a link that has him going down the land for peace route?
Of course he’s worried about Trump. One of Ukraine’s most reliable supporters; Boris, traveled to meet Trump and wrote an inexplicably upbeat OpEd that turned out in effect to be a land for peace draft.
I consider this to be a shocking positional switch from Boris. I still don’t understand why he did it.
“We agreed with president Trump to discuss at a personal meeting what steps can make peace fair and truly lasting.”
https://www.pdclarion.com/news/national/zelensky-facing-anger-in-ukraine-over-trump-call-kyiv-mayor-makes-big-announcement-russia-war/video_d17c77c5-25be-5d14-9bb6-bafc5922eb0f.html?=/&subcategory=448%7CPop
Any discussion with Trump would turn into a discussion of land for peace. Zelensky must know this. The only thing Zelensky could do to change Trump’s mind would be to remind him about all the mineral deals the US would be missing out on. But surely Trump already knows about them. He just doesn’t care. He has an insurmountable man crush on Putin. In any case, it looks like Trump has plans to put Vance in charge of Ukraine.
He didn’t commit to a land for peace deal though, which as Klitschko rightly says is “political suicide.”
Hindustan Times?! A putinoid shitshow like that will always spin it against Zel.
That’s a good point, Brasizematters. A question that is formulated like this would remind those asked that peace is a relative term that is defined by the mafia gutter rat.
Zelensky never should have called Trump. He might as well have called Putin. By even discussing the possibility of land for peace, he’s making a self-fulfilling prophesy.
He was right to call him.
He has no choice but to make nice with the scuzzball who has a 50-50 chance of taking power.
Just a few days after Zelenshy’s call to Trump, the poll showing a spike in the number of Ukrainians willing to “trade land for peace” was published. These two events together created a propaganda bonanza for Putin and his friends. For example:
And it alarmed Klitschko:
https://kyivindependent.com/klitschko-zelensky-will-likely-need-to-hold-referendum-before-any-territorial-compromises-with-russia/
TOI? That’s pure kremkrapp, but blended with curry.
As for the KI:
According to Svitlana Moronets :
“Ukrainians opposed to land concessions for peace
55%
down from 65% in February, according to a KIIS poll.”
So, the choice for Americans; and of course Ukrainians, appears to be:
fight on with Kamala or loose 20-25% of their land to putler under a Trump administration. If Trump wins, they may still choose to fight on, even with the flakey support of Europe, rather than concede land to putinaZi vermin.
But if polling ever shows that the majority of Ukrainians do in fact want to trade land for peace, then it’s their choice. A terrible one, but understandable, given that aid from the west has never once risen above 20% of what it should be.
Trading land for peace in Ukraine is one thing; trading land for Putin’s promise of peace is another. The first is a mere fantasy. Many of the poll’s respondents would have forgotten, were too young to remember, were engaged in wishful thinking, were suffering from the effects of propaganda, or needed to be reminded that Putin never keeps his promises. Had the question been phrased in the latter form, I think the results would have been different. But if Zelensky thinks an obsequious call to Trump will change his mind about supporting Ukraine, he’s badly mistaken. He’s already given Trump a standing invitation and been completely ignored. He should call Mark Kelly, a real friend to Ukraine.
I think Putin can only be forced to make concessions by hurting his army so much until the public in ruSSia has enough.
Looking at the war from start to today, I can’t really blame the stinking rat for thinking he can outlast the West. A rickety old lady with asthma could outlast the West. But, he’s not fighting the Squishmallows, he’s fighting Ukraine.