West's failure in Ukraine: Selling out Kyiv would be a shameful betrayal

By Max Hastings

Ukraine will soon be sold out. If that statement sounds too brutal and conclusive, consider the evidence: The Russians occupy one-fifth of its territory, and the Ukrainians’ best efforts have failed to expel these invaders. Vladimir Putin’s army is acquiring ever-more sophisticated weapons, while the Ukrainians struggle to sustain their own forces.

More serious, European nations facing economic and energy woes are desperate to see an end to the struggle on any terms short of Ukraine’s absolute surrender. If Donald Trump wins the US election, it is widely assumed that, given his declared enthusiasm for Putin, the Ukrainians are toast. Even if Kamala Harris reaches the White House, it is likely she will pursue a deal to end the war because Washington sees no scenario for Ukrainian victory, despite the dispatch of $175 billion in US aid.

 

The Middle East wars have distracted attention from Ukraine, at tragic cost to President Vladimir Zelenskiy’s people. Fewer American weapons are available for shipment to Kyiv, and the eyes of Western governments are focused overwhelmingly on Israel and Iran, even as Russian forces advance. 

If those are the headlines, let us explore some details. First is Russian acquisition of more effective weapons. North Korea sells Putin ammunition for one-tenth the cost per round of the Western ordnance used by Zelenskiy’s forces. The Russians are reported to have established a factory in China to build Garpiya-3 attack drones using Chinese expertise. There are reports of hundreds of North Korean army technicians posted to Russia, to assist with rocketry Pyongyang has supplied.

There is anger among Ukrainians that the Russians appear to be exploiting illicit Starlink internet connections to boost their surveillance and command and control capabilities. Though Elon Musk denies thus giving assistance to Russia, the Ukrainians are deeply suspicious.

The Iranians are providing Putin with ballistic missiles, and Russian bombardments of Ukrainian energy infrastructure are devastating. This winter, more than a few of Zelensky’s people will lack light and heat, a serious blow to morale.  It remains a source of bitterness that the US refuses to allow Ukraine to use American weapons to respond in kind.   

As for foreign support, President Zelenskiy’s tour of Europe earlier this month to promote his so-called “Victory Plan” secured supportive rhetoric, but little more. The new head of Nato, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, told journalists: “Supporting Ukraine in the fight with Russia is crucial for our collective security.” This is absolutely true.  Privately, however, European nations are desperate to revive the old cheap energy regime - which depends on Russian oil and gas.

The flow of European munitions to Ukraine, never strong, is now slowing to a trickle, not least because of the sluggish pace of manufacture, which isn’t much better in the US. Economic sanctions against Russia remain highly porous, thanks to lack of will in the West for enforcement.

In Ukraine itself, after almost three years in which it has been deemed treasonable to speak of any acceptable outcome of the war except victory and the expulsion of the Russians from the Donbas, today many people speak instead of negotiations. They acknowledge that it is unlikely Putin’s forces can be dispossessed of their gains, which are still increasing.

This summer there was excitement when the Ukrainians launched a surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, where they met little resistance as they occupied several hundred square miles of territory. This was hailed as a blow to Putin’s prestige. Yet the operation proved a thrust to nowhere. If anything, the attack may have assisted Putin’s campaign to portray the war to the Russian people as a Nato-directed act of aggression against their homeland.

As Ukraine and Russia now approach the winter, few people can doubt that 2024 has been a successful year for Putin, a sad and difficult one for Zelenskiy. The latter said in Croatia a fortnight ago: “Weakness of any of our allies will inspire Putin.  That’s why we’re asking [the allies] to strengthen us, in terms of security guarantees, in terms of weapons, in terms of our future after this war.  In my view [Putin] only understands force.”

Zelenskiy is right. But it is becoming ever harder to persuade foreign political leaders and their peoples, preoccupied with their own troubles and frankly bored with Ukraine’s, to support courses of action which may demand sacrifices at home.

An American strategy guru shrewdly predicted in the war’s first summer that, while the Russians might prove unable to conquer Ukraine, they could keep it in a condition where no sane person could wish to live or invest in it.  This is a real prospect.  There is little sign of the 7 million Ukrainians who have quit their country since February 2022 seeking to return. Ukraine’s economy is tottering.

The best guarantee of Ukraine’s security would be Nato membership.  This remains highly unlikely, however. Putin would reject any settlement or even truce that included such a provision. The US is wary of such a commitment. The Germans and, perhaps, other European members, would veto it. 

It is both obvious and right that the Ukrainians will spurn any deal that doesn’t offer them a Western military guarantee, in the event of renewed Russian aggression. But such an arrangement will need to be a tailor-made one-off.  It may also prove hard to get the Russians to accept any deal that includes scope for Ukrainian membership of the European Union.

This war started because Moscow refuses to tolerate a successful democratic, independent neighbor. This remains the chief impediment to ending it: Putin wants a Russian puppet government in Kyiv and the Ukrainians have sacrificed tens of thousands of lives to prevent such an outcome.

There has been a grievous failure of leadership in the West. The only people who can claim to have contrived finest hours from the Ukraine war are the Ukrainians. Their allies are proving to lack steel and staying power for a protracted conflict.  Some analysts derive comfort from the fact that the West has supported Ukraine thus far, and made Putin pay a heavy price for a very limited success.        

I am unconvinced by this half-a-loaf argument. To me, it looks more as if Putin’s belief is well-founded, that the West is decadent and divided — thus vulnerable. We should be ashamed that this is so, and there is still time to prove him wrong — by dramatically upping weapons shipments and cash aid to Kyiv. 

---

Disclaimer: This is a Bloomberg Opinion piece, and these are the personal opinions of the writer. They do not reflect the views of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper