There is a growing risk that Western support for Ukraine in its war with Russia will come to a halt. Although the European Union approved in extremis 50 billion euros to contribute to the Ukrainian war effort after overcoming the opposition of the pro-Russian Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán, the US Senate blocked an important package last Wednesday 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 take a back seat to the agenda, while others aspire to obtain internal and external political income 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 in the Upper House by the Biden Administration, everything indicates that a victory for Donald Trump would almost certainly result in the end of economic support and military of the United States to the Government of Kyiv and by forcing it to conclude a peace agreement, the result of which would be the consolidation of the territorial gains obtained so far by Vladimir Putin.
The main arguments that have been used to justify the abandonment of support for Ukraine are three: first, the failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive in 2023 shows its impossibility to win the war; second, Russia's inability to defeat its neighbor reflects its military weakness and, consequently, there is no risk to the security of countries bordering Russia, and third, the West is wasting its resources. These should be used domestically to boost economic recovery and, externally, to contain the true enemy of the Western world, China. These three objections have a weak foundation.
The thesis according to which a stagnation of the conflict has occurred is uncertain. Wars are dynamic and should not be viewed in a static way. 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 revenue for the country, and 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 military. This allowed the Russians to fortify and mine all the 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, it would underline the commitment of the US to the defense of international law and the liberal order. This would send a powerful signal to the revisionist powers whose objective is to destroy both elements; it would increase the credibility and deterrence effectiveness of the US at a time of global instability and counter the propaganda campaign about its decline and retreat from global leadership carried out by autocratic states.
Second, continued support for Ukraine would convey a message of confidence to US allies, providing them with security in a world scenario as unstable and volatile as it is today. If they feel unprotected, they will tend to adopt independent security policies (danger of a proliferation of nuclear weapons and regional arms races) or seek appeasement formulas with the enemy powers of the West. Either of these two alternatives does not benefit the American country in any way. Also, if the US cuts off aid to Ukraine, that would undermine the European war effort.
Because the EU does not have the ability or probably the will to sustain the Ukrainian cause alone. In addition, an American withdrawal from the conflict would strengthen the position of the states and parties of the Old Continent sympathetic to Russia and supporters of a policy of appeasement towards it.
Finally, leaving 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 and defend against Russian aggression in the future. In addition, other revisionist powers will have many incentives to embark on expansionary actions, for example China-Taiwan.
The Russo-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 US stopped perceiving this reality. During his visit to a military hospital last January, President Vladimir Putin declared: "The important thing is not that they (the West) are helping the enemy. They are our enemy."
