There is a growing risk of ceasing Western support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. Although the European Union approved 50 billion euros in extremis to contribute to the Ukrainian war effort after overcoming the opposition of the pro-Russian Hungarian leader, Viktor Orbán, the North American Senate last Wednesday blocked an important package of financial assistance to that country. For some, the conflict has been going on for too long and the time has come for it to move to the background of the agenda, while others aspire to obtain internal and external political benefits from their opposition to aid.
This panorama of uncertainty is accentuated by a phenomenon of enormous global significance: the elections for the presidency of the United States next November. In view of the obstruction by Republican senators of the funds for Ukraine requested from the Upper House by the Biden Administration, everything indicates that a victory for Donald Trump would almost certainly result in the end of US economic and military support. to the Kyiv Government and to force it to close a peace agreement, the result of which would be the consolidation of the territorial gains obtained to date by Putin.
The main arguments used to justify the abandonment of support for Ukraine are three: first, the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023 shows its impossibility of winning the war; second, Russia's inability to defeat its neighbor reflects its military weakness and, consequently, there is no risk to the security of the countries bordering Russia, and, third, the West wastes its resources. These would have to be used on a national scale to boost the recovery of the economy and, on the external level, to contain the true enemy of the Western world, China. These three objections have a fragile foundation.
The thesis according to which there has been a stagnation of the conflict is uncertain. Wars are dynamic and should not be viewed statically. This dynamism is clearly seen in the Black Sea, where the Ukrainians have caused the total collapse of Russian military operations. They have broken the blockade on Ukrainian grain exports to world markets, a critical source of income for the country, and have significantly curtailed Russia's ability to launch ballistic missiles from the sea against its territory. Ukraine is clearly winning the naval war.
The lack of success of its ground counteroffensive has one explanation: delays by the United States and its allies in delivering key advanced weapons, such as tanks and long-range missiles, to the Ukrainian army. This allowed the Russians to fortify and mine all occupied territories. This situation is obviously not irreversible.
However, the maintenance of Western aid to Ukraine transcends the battlefield. It has a scope of greater relevance for the future. First, I would underscore the US commitment to defending international law and the liberal order. This would send a powerful signal to the revisionist powers whose goal is to destroy both; It would increase the credibility and deterrent effectiveness of the United States at a time of global instability and would also counteract the propaganda campaign about its decline and the withdrawal of global leadership carried out by autocratic states.
Secondly, the persistence of support for Ukraine would transmit a message of confidence to US allies, providing them with security in a world scenario as unstable and volatile as the current one. If they feel unprotected, they will tend to adopt independent security policies (danger of nuclear weapons proliferation and regional arms races) or they will seek appeasement formulas with the Western enemy powers.
Either of these two alternatives does not benefit the American country in any way. Furthermore, if the US cuts aid to Ukraine, it would undermine the European war effort. The EU does not have the capacity nor probably the will to support the Ukrainian cause alone. Furthermore, a North American withdrawal from the conflict would strengthen the position of the states and parties of the Old Continent that sympathize with Russia and support a policy of appeasement towards it.
Finally, abandoning Ukraine would encourage Russia to embark on new adventures. If Putin is not defeated on the battlefield now, it will cost much more to deter him and defend against Russian aggression in the future. Likewise, other revisionist powers will have many incentives to embark on expansionary actions, read China-Taiwan.
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is the first major hot war of the new cold war. The Kremlin and Beijing are clear about this and it would be dramatic if the United States stopped perceiving that reality. On his visit to a military hospital last January, Putin declared: “The important thing is not that they (the West) are helping the enemy. "They are our enemy."
