As we proceed through the most difficult months of winter, the tide of war in Ukraine appears to be turning toward favoring Russia. During the week the town of Avdiivka fell to the Russians as pictures showing the Russians putting their flag to the center of town confirm. The Russians had been putting up a dogged fight to take Avdiivka back at a tremendous human cost. Some reasons for their effort such as logistical considerations are purely military. Here, I will focus the political dimension. The Ukrainian forces did not withdraw from the town because they were less qualified, poorly trained or inferior soldiers. In fact, the opposite is closer to truth. They were well-trained professionals committed to defending the town because they believed that their homeland was invaded by an expansionist neighbor. They fought Russians forces willing to accept immense losses to achieve a simple military aim.
Why did the Ukrainians vacate the town to which they had been hanging on for so long, knowing that withdrawal would lead to a loss of morale on their side or even a will to fight? The reason is simple: They were about to run out of ammunition which was already scarce and being rationed. The problem behind the shortage was that the US and the EU that had encouraged Ukraine to resist Russian encroachments had failed to supply it with sufficient military supplies to meet the challenge. In encouraging Ukraine to fight, they had judged that if Ukraine did not fight for its existence, the Russians would not stop there but continue their move westward. Such a situation would indeed be dangerous since Ukraine bordered NATO territory. The solution, therefore, was to support Ukraine in its war to repel the Russian incursions to its territory, to apply sanctions to Russia so as to weaken it economically and to force the Russians to give up their claims on Ukraine. The entire scheme was based on the questionable assumption that Western powers would provide Ukraine with sufficient means to stop the Russians. That assumption appears to have been invalidated by recent developments.
The critical actor whose failure to deliver on its promises is the US. It is not only that the failure of the Americans to live up to their commitments undermines the Ukrainian war effort, but European willingness to support Ukraine is inextricably linked with the determination the US displays in supporting Ukraine. We might wonder, therefore, as to what is happening in the US? It is clear that American politics is polarized as never seen before. The Republicans in control of the House of Representatives by the smallest of margins, have linked the totally unrelated issue of controls along the Mexican border from where, they complain, too many illegal immigrants are coming into the US, with the military aid to Ukraine. After prolonged negotiations, the Biden Administration has managed to affect a compromise in the Senate, but the Speaker of the House has refused to even put the bill on the House agenda. While some assistance has been sent to Ukraine through existing military arrangements, the future of American aid is still unclear. The meaning of American commitment to help defend Ukraine has been rendered even more complicated by the rise of Donald Trump as the likely presidential candidate of the Republican Party. Mr. Trump has made it clear that he is less interested in devoting resources to European defense. John Bolton, now out of favor but his one time National Security Adviser, has recently divulged that he and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stopped him with difficulty in taking the US out of NATO. How can either the Europeans or the Ukrainians trust America in formulating their security policies.
Turning to Europe, it is not a unified force in international politics and less than capable in formulating policies without American leadership. Germany is still in the process of deciding what kind of military power it wants to be, if any, in the face of a loss of American interest in the continent. The EU, on the other hand, experiences difficulties in developing unionwide policies. As I have noted in earlier writing, some big members are inclined to pursue their independent foreign policies. In case of Ukraine, on the other hand, Hungary’s pro-Russian disposition appears to have paralyzed the Union into talk but no action. Individual countries have been extending moderate help to Ukraine, but such help is far from being decisive.
Until recently, the Russian-Ukrainian war was at a standstill. Unless and until the Americans modify their stance and Europe follows it, slowly the tide will be turning against Ukraine. If that turns out to be the case, the Ukrainians will regret their decision to continue fighting under American and European prodding rather than taking the opportunity to make peace with the Russians in Spring 2022 at the Antalya Diplomatic Forum.
