How the hell can we put an end to this war that is so dangerous and costly to everyone? The need to draw a road map towards peace in Ukraine was imposed yesterday as a priority issue, although not declared, at the reception of President Joe Biden to Foreign Minister Olaf Scholz at the White House. The meeting was organized discreetly and without a final press conference.
In brief remarks before the meeting, Biden and Scholz limited themselves to stressing the importance of sticking together and reiterating the message that allied aid to Ukraine will continue "for as long as necessary"; a reaffirmation underlying the urgency of preventing fissures between allies such as those that arose and were later resolved in relation to the shipment of tanks to the invaded country, or such as those that could arise if China materially supported Russia in the conflict and the US. insisted on agreeing on harsh sanctions against Beijing.
Last Saturday, some 13,000 people took to the streets in Berlin to protest against the shipment of arms to Ukraine. It was not an extraordinary demonstration, but yesterday The New York Times highlighted the fact while associating it with the growing concern of European leaders about the difficulties of sustaining support for the invaded nation in a very long war, and doing so without the unit blown up.
The economic cost of that support worries more and more, on both sides of the Atlantic. Germany has committed more than 14 billion euros in military and humanitarian support to Ukraine, but estimates of the costs to its economy by the end of this year vary between 100 and 160 million. Hence the chancellor's chief of staff, Wolfgang Schmidt, on Thursday acknowledged to The Wall Street Journal the possibility that a budget crisis would prevent Berlin from meeting its 2022 promise to increase defense spending. “We must be honest about this. Ambition and reality diverge,” Schmidt said.
In Washington, meanwhile, an ultra faction of the Republican Party that in numbers is a minority but in influence has already shown itself decisive is demanding an end to Congress's “blank check” in aid to Ukraine.
At the level of political strategy, the differences within the Western bloc against Vladimir Putin are pronounced. Both Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron have urged Volodimir Zelenski and Putin to start negotiations in search of a peaceful solution to the conflict. And Macron has said that France does not seek to "crush Russia" and would not even pursue the withdrawal of its leader if it contributed to peace.
Eastern European partners disagree. They would not feel safe with a Russian Federation maintaining its military might with Putin still in charge.
Biden, for his part, stated almost a year ago that the Russian president "cannot remain in power." But then the White House corrected itself to ensure that Washington is not seeking regime change in Moscow. And the president himself, on his visit to Poland after going to Kyiv on the first anniversary of the war, reportedly warned the Bucharest Nine or B9 – NATO's eastern allies, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia – that the goal of supporting Ukraine is not to end the Putin regime, senior Biden Administration officials said.
White House Homeland Security spokesman John Kirby acknowledged yesterday that the search for an end to the war was a key issue in the meeting with Scholz because "everyone wants this to end." But he added that it is Putin who can make it possible tomorrow, as he should, and that the Biden administration remains firmly committed to the principle of "nothing on Ukraine without Ukraine."
But, with a view to a pragmatic negotiation, the US Administration has shown that it is not entirely clear about Zelenski's claim to recover Crimea and therefore return to the situation prior to its invasion by Russian forces in 2014.
In any case, and as the specialist in ending wars and professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester (New York) Hein Goeman points out, Putin has two powerful reasons to maintain his offensive indefinitely: one, that "Ukraine would only accept that Russia would retain part of its territory if it obtained security guarantees from the West, and those could only be given by NATO..., and it was precisely the rejection of Ukraine's association with NATO that led the Russian leader to war." ; and the other, that Putin knows that "if he loses the war he will end up deposed in his country and surely dead."
So that the end of the contest is a desire and a need that is as urgent as it is apparently distant. And Biden and Scholz had to talk yesterday about how to shorten the conflict. But also about how, in the meantime, they continue to help Ukraine without the fissures between allies becoming bigger and bigger.
To continue setting an example and underlining his leadership on the front against Putin, Biden announced a new military support package for the attacked country, this time based on ammunition and amounting to 400 million dollars. The US aid bill exceeds $112 billion including humanitarian aid; the military chapter exceeds 46,000.
And add and continue. Not just in money; especially in lives.
