PARIS.– After days of rumors, the blade of the guillotine finally fell: the Ukrainian president, Volodimir Zelenskychanged this week to General Valery Zaluzhny, and replaced him with his peer, Oleksander Sirski, as head of the Armed Forces. With only two weeks left until two years after the Russian invasion, the dismissal of the most popular man in the country -more than the president himself-, who knew how to keep the Army united in the face of brutal Russian aggression and even reverse the situation when everyone was betting on a defeat for kyivincreases the doubts about the future of the war.
Mykailo Podoliak, Zelensky’s top adviser, justified the change by evoking the need to break with a strategy destined to fail and “review the tactical decisions that did not allow us to obtain the expected results last year, avoid stagnation on the front that negatively affects the morale of the population and find functional and technological solutions that will allow us to maintain the initiative.”
In a column published on November 1 in The EconomistZaluzhny himself acknowledged having underestimated the strength of the Russian defenses. In his opinion, however, the causes of the lack of military success in 2023 were not those, but “the chronic lack of adapted weapons and the absence of air support.”
In any case, relations between the president and his military chief had deteriorated since the summer, due to disagreements over the number of men to be mobilized and the weapons needed. The point of no return came in November, when Zaluzhny decided to publicly state what many already knew: The Ukrainian offensive was at a standstill.
“And unacceptable exercise of sincerity for Zelenskywho was thus forced to resign from his victorious rhetoric and admit the Ukrainian difficulties in the military,” says Gérard Chaliand, specialist in International and Strategic Relations. Ukrainians, however, appreciated Zaluzhny’s transparency and honesty, elevating him to first place in opinion polls.
Counterintuitively, the Military difficulties affected the leader of the State more than its military chief. Even taking into account the stumbles on the battlefield, The Army – whose troops pay a high price for the war – has so far escaped criticism.
“This is not the case with the political class, to whom Ukrainians reproach the gap between the dithyrambic statements and the results obtained in two years of war,” adds Chaliand.
Added to this delicate internal situation is a growing change in international perception. Just a year ago, much of Europe and the United States were full of optimism that Ukraine was about to expel Russia from its territory. Then it seemed inconceivable that the United States would turn its back on the victim of the president’s aggression. Vladimir Putin.
Now, as Senate Democrats try to salvage a military aid package for kyiv, that political moment seems far away. Faced with fierce opposition from many Republicans in the House of Representatives and the push by former president and pre-candidate Donald Trump in favor of a more isolationist stance, There are many reasons to doubt that they will accept that money ever reaching Ukraine.
No alternative plan
Although surprised, the White House insists that “they are not studying a plan B”, in the words of the National Security Advisor. Before his NATO counterparts this week, Jake Sullivan insisted on sticking with “plan A,” which, he said, means pass bipartisan relief package which will allow Ukraine “effectively defend and recover the territory that Russia currently occupies.”
Behind the scenes, however, there is much discussion in Washington and Europe about other options, including the confiscation of more than $300 billion in Russian Central Bank assets that are deposited in Western nations. Although the process is turning out to be much more complicated than it seemed at first.
To kyiv’s consolation, Congress’s threat to derail aid came just as Europe pledged €50 billion to rebuild Ukraine over the next four years. The decision was made once The Europeans managed to overcome the opposition of the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, for whom aid to Ukraine was never a matter of immovable principles.
“It is just one of the many issues on which he has tried to establish himself as the leader of a pan-European populist and ultra-nationalist movement and, above all, to use as currency to obtain financial benefits of a European Union (EU) that reproaches it for its numerous violations of the democratic principles of the bloc”, underlines Gesine Weber, specialist in European Security and Defense issues.
Still, both Europeans and Americans admit that There is nothing on the horizon that can match the power of a new US Congressional appropriation of $60 billion. which would buy strengthened air defenses, more tanks and missiles, and a huge influx of ammunition.
Europe does not have the capacity to provide much more ammunition on its own. During 30 years of an increasingly uneasy peace with Russia, Europe dismantled much of its production capacity. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said in a recent speech that “We will have launched more than half a million artillery shells next month” and “more than a million by the end of the year,” acknowledging that “this is certainly not enough.”
“Europe also has little to contribute to drone manufacturing. and Germany remains undecided about handing over its long-range air-launched cruise missile, Taurus, for fear that it will be used to attack Russian territory,” adds Weber.
In any case, in the corridors of the European Commission (EC) in Brussels, officials openly express fear that Trump will be re-elected and make good on his promise to withdraw from NATO. Privately, everyone evokes the reliability of the United States, no matter who the president is.
Pinned
“Everything is on pins and needles until the November elections in the United States. Nothing is black or white. Even some of Trump’s former National Security Advisors are beginning to say that not financing Ukraine would amount to a huge strategic victory for Putin,” analyzes Patrick Martin-Genier, an international relations specialist.
That is the case of HR MacMaster, former North American National Security Advisor. “The United States has a clear choice: arm Ukrainians with the weapons they need to defend themselves or cut off aid and abandon democratic Ukraine in its fight for national survival against Putin’s aggression.”said.
“The abandonment of kyiv It would be a gift to the Moscow-Tehran-Beijing-Pyongyang axis of aggressors. “Allies and partners would lose confidence in the United States as these aggressors become emboldened,” he concluded.
The reality is that, for the first time, The United States is now lagging behind by a wide margin compared to European aid. An attitude that has nothing inexplicable.
“This is not charity. “It is for our own security interest.”said Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General at alliance headquarters on Wednesday, in the presence of Jake Sullivan. A Russian victory, he added, “matters for European security and it matters for American security.”
None of these arguments can, however, overcome the reality: if the United States were to suspend its financial support for the war, much of the day-to-day military needs would disappear, starting with air defense against almost daily bombardments from missiles, drones and other weapons aimed at urban centers and critical infrastructures such as the electrical grid. Not to mention that the symbolism of the United States retreating now could have devastating effects.
And if the country’s economy collapsed, it would end a two-year effort to save a fledgling democracy even when it is deeply flawed.
Themes
Other news from War in Ukraine
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/lanacionar/GM4PWQDD5ZHRFGXFUZYLIFU7ZA.jpg)
“Realistic battle plan.” The objectives of the new head of the Ukrainian Army and his bid to win the war against Russia
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/lanacionar/IVIIDCJI4FBTRLZDDDLFV2UNHE.png)
“Time of renewal.” Zelensky’s drastic decision: he fired the head of the Army at a critical moment in the war for Ukraine
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/lanacionar/WK3CDYCOZ5BJXO7M4AH5VFP2YU.JPG)