Recently, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned that the war in Ukraine it can last up to 10 years. And Europe must be prepared for this.
Such a forecast may sound startling, but against the background of developments so far, it does not seem unrealistic at all. In many respects, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, in which the two sides fought a grueling war for eight years and finally concluded a truce in virtually the starting positions.
Then the population ratio between Iran and Iraq resembles that between Russia and Ukraine, but the smaller country (Iraq) relies on solid international support - paradoxically, both from members of the Warsaw Pact, and from NATO countries, and from "neutral". It is even more paradoxical that Iraq enjoys this support while it is formally the aggressor. But in the end, peace restores pre-war borders - only at the cost of over 1 million casualties (in total), about US$350 billion in military spending for both sides, plus the deployment by the Iraqi army and chemical weapons - both against opposing fighters and against civilians (Halabja). Separately, Iraq owes about $14 billion to Kuwait - believed to be one of the reasons why Saddam Hussein's troops invaded the emirate in 1990.
And what do we have in Ukraine? After the initial Russian "blitzkrieg" and the subsequent repulse of Russian forces by Ukrainian forces, we will see that the front line has not shifted significantly in the last two years. Offensives, counter-offensives, Bakhmut, Avdeevka, Chasiv Yar, Nikolaev, Kherson, Kharkiv, Odessa (no pretense of chronological order) - and neither side can claim to have taken a strategic advantage that would predetermine its recent victory. Not to mention that the battles for none of these settlements can be compared - neither in importance nor in drama - with the entry into the suburbs of Kiev or the siege of Mariupol.
The war has long since become a positional one, a war of attrition in which the larger country waits for the smaller one to be abandoned in order to assert itself over it. Or, if this does not happen, to reach a truce, which will consolidate the current situation (which is not in favor of Ukraine, or the countries that support it).
It has come to this point because of the half-hearted international aid given to Ukraine. Half of it is because it is enough to restrain the aggressor. If it didn't exist at all, by now Kiev would have capitulated to Moscow; if it was more adequate, by now the Russian units would have been expelled from the territory of Ukraine.
And when it comes to insufficient support, the blame should be mainly on the European countries. Because even before the American Congress voted the large-scale military aid to Ukraine in the amount of 61 billion. dollars, the United States was already well ahead of Europe in terms of support for Kiev.
A comparison published by Deutsche Welle in April this year found that Washington has already committed €42 billion to Kiev since the start of the Russian invasion (not counting aid approved by Congress). While from the European countries "champion" in this respect is Germany (17.7 billion euros), followed by Denmark (4.5 billion euros), Great Britain (2.9 billion euros), the Netherlands (2 billion euros, promised 4.4 billion), Norway (1 billion euros , promised 3.8 billion), Poland (promised 3 billion euros), Sweden (promised 2 billion euros)... In addition, the "European Instrument for Peace" - EU supranational fund in the amount of 5.6 billion euros. But the American aid (and the Canadian one in the amount of 2 billion euros) definitely stands out from the efforts of the Old Continent in this regard.
Yes, it could be said that while North America is emphasizing military aid, Europe is financially supporting the Ukrainian economy - but if the front doesn't hold, what's the point?
Another important point is that the aid should not be considered (only) as a share of the GDP and/or the military budget of the respective country, but above all as an interest in bringing the war to a successful end. The USA and Canada do not have such a great direct interest in the war in Ukraine that their good will can be relied on. Where are France, Italy, Spain in this equation? Why is an "imbalance" between the aid from the countries of the eastern flank of NATO and the others in Europe?
Furthermore, after the US presidential elections in November, it is possible that US aid to Ukraine will be... well, not exactly stopped, but at least "reconsidered". And not because Donald Trump and JD Vance are of such a mind, but because a large part of the American citizens who voted for them are not at all convinced that it is necessary to prioritize the Ukrainian case over the purely "American" ones. problems.
Europe has not stopped declaring its support for Ukraine. Declaratively. The case is a little different. Let's just recall the promise made by Josep Borrell in February - Ukraine will receive over one million shells from the EU by the end of the year. A promise that cannot be seen to be fulfilled.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaia Kalas has been nominated as the future European Commissioner for Foreign Policy, which in itself is an unequivocal signal of a hardening of the European course towards Russia, i.e. a commitment to more serious military support for Ukraine. Let's just hope it doesn't turn out that Brussels remains only with its intentions. Because while the European Commission assumes, the national governments have (or at least this has been the practice so far).
And quite a few national governments are also facing "fatigue" among their societies from the ongoing two and a half year war in Ukraine. Yes, Russia is an aggressor, there are no two opinions, but let's end this grief already - such a position is becoming more and more popular among European citizens and logically finds political expression as well. Which further complicates the "mobilization" in Europe and tilts the scales more towards diplomatic pressure to start peace talks than for more large-scale military support.
And here we come to the point: it matters a great deal from what position one enters into peace negotiations. Or to put it another way, the "lack of support" militarily pushes to "disadvantageous" peace.
Agreement between Kiev and Moscow in which Ukraine is not restored to its borders from before the start of "Donbas separatism" (only the annexation of Crimea can be ultimately swallowed, since things there are more complicated and with a longer history) can be considered a failure - both for Ukraine and for the West. Let's not forget that Russia, in addition to territorial claims, will also have military-political ones - demilitarization of Ukraine plus refusal to apply for NATO (perhaps for the EU as well).
But on the other hand, there is no way to achieve a "profitable" agreement under current realities. The Ukrainian army is visibly panting; it is clear that what has been achieved so far would not have been possible without international assistance; it is clear that those who supported Ukraine until now are trying to "get away" in one way or another. from the game. Well, how then to achieve a just peace?
A question for reflection - both in Brussels and in other European capitals. In Washington, they have other concerns...