The US Congress has passed another aid package for Ukraine, in a version that received the official approval of Donald Trump. This is a legislative expedient called “loan-lease”, thanks to which Ukraine will receive military aid in the form of commercial credit, and military equipment in “leasing”, to be returned at the end of the conflict. The military aspect represents a political cover, as it was during the Second World War, when the United States provided weapons to its allies under the Lend-Lease Act. However, the difference lies in the financial aid part, which is provided in the form of a loan or financing.
If and when Ukraine joins the European Union, its debts will in practice be transferred to Europe, as Europe will have to shoulder the costs of the country’s transition to a member state. Trump and Johnson are actually shifting the financing burden to Europe. If it is approved, the package will have to wait for the legislative and logistical times of its implementationand since this legislation in the House of Representatives will be different from that already passed by the US Senate, the proposal will have to return to a joint commission called to develop and sign a common text.
Meanwhile, Russia is exploiting this decision-making vacuum at the center of Western policy on Ukraine to consolidate its territorial claims. The attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure have been devastating. Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, sent one of the twelve Patriot anti-aircraft defense systems supplied to Germany to Ukraine. An undoubtedly useful move, but far from proving decisive. Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, stated that he would need 25 air defense systems to ensure complete protection of the country. At the moment, Ukraine has three or maybe five systems. The gap represents the true extent of the problem, which matches the gap between Western promises and realities on the ground.
As American foreign policy increasingly focuses on the Middle East, Ukraine’s war is becoming a European war. Besides the need for additional air defense systems, what Ukraine and its European allies urgently need is a strategy, a clear idea about a couple of goals and how to get there. Modern wars rarely end in clear victory or clear defeat. Various outcomes are conceivable in this case, beyond a Russian annexation of the entire Ukrainian territory or a categorical defeat of Moscow.
The West’s main mistake was to underestimate, on the one hand, Vladimir Putin’s grip on power and his resilience, and to overestimate the impact of economic sanctions on the Russian economy on the other. Recently the country has recorded growth rates higher than those of the major Western economies. In terms of purchasing power, Russia is comparable to the size of Germany, and in the face of its resistance, the West seems to have lost all interest and all eyes are now on the conflict in the Middle East.
I had the opportunity to reflect on the absence of any Western strategy thanks to a recent comment by Scholz, when he stated that in his opinion the war in Ukraine will continue for a long time. His statement fits with an estimate I heard from an unofficial source, according to which the Berlin Chancellery assumes that the war will drag on for a decade. Such hypotheses are highly revealing. Ten years exceeds even the Scholz government’s most optimistic life expectancy estimates. It’s another way of saying, we haven’t a clue how the war will end, and we’re happy to leave that task to the next chancellor.
The Germans currently provide more aid and armaments than any other European country, but from a strategic point of view they are proving to be a real disaster. The only clarifications coming from Berlin are the red lines. We already know that Scholz rejects the idea of an escalation beyond Ukraine’s borders. But as for the rest, a thick fog reigns. The red lines approach gave us the eurozone sovereign debt crisis last decade. And now they try again with foreign policy. It is true that the West has better weapons, in terms of efficiency and volume, than Russia, and many more resources. It was impressive to see the Patriots capable of intercepting almost all but seven of the 120 ballistic missiles, 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles that Iran launched in the direction of Israel. A proxy war in Ukraine, with Western help, would be easily resolved. But it is not precisely because of the lack of clear military objectives and precise strategies to achieve them: strengthening the current front lines; liberate occupied territories one segment at a time; identify potential solutions to the conflict, between the extremes of total victory or total defeat; and finally prepare a diplomatic agreement to establish the end of the war.
The implicit strategy of those who call for a ten-year war points to the attempt to exhaust the enemy, or to wait for some other event to occur. I strongly advise Western leaders against trying to defeat Putin in a contest of will and endurance. Rather, we are the ones who risk succumbing to geopolitical attention disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome. A war that drags on for ten years would also freeze any hope for Ukraine to join the EU and NATO, turning into an economic paralysis for both Ukraine and the EU. Neither NATO nor the EU can accept the membership of a country at war. Have our leaders properly reflected on this state of affairs?
We are entering a political scenario with which Europeans are unfamiliar. Germany is the only country capable of helping Ukraine, yet Germany is the country of red lines. The United States, meanwhile, remains a distant ally and increasingly reluctant defender. And it’s not just Trump. For Europe, the time has come to shoulder his responsibilities.
(Translation by Rita Baldassarre)
April 29, 2024
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
