What does the West put into the concept of "victory of Ukraine" and "defeat of Russia"?

Zeitenwende vs Fear Factor, or Risks of Strategic Uncertainty

Zeitenwende, or turning point. Even before it was recognized as the word of the year in Germany, this statement by Olaf Scholz was very often used by Western analysts to define new realities in international relations after the start of Russia's large-scale war against Ukraine.

This war really became a "harsh awakening" not only for Europeans, but also for those political and economic leaders of the collective West, who expected to "re-educate" Putin's Russia through integration into the world economy. Also, the world’s leaders turned a blind eye to its aggressive behavior and to the fact that Russian dirty money flowing to international financial centers actually contributed to the formation of their countries' dependence on Russian energy resources.

Even after the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of part of Donbas by Russia, the position of many of our Western partners resembled attempts to run dry between raindrops. Correct and even strict official statements contrasted noticeably with inadequate sanctions, continuation of economic cooperation with Russia and refusal to supply weapons to Ukraine. Such things as the calculation of the EU's dependence on Russian resources, the presence of Russian agents of influence in the establishment of European countries and confidence in the inability of the West to respond quickly and harshly to Russia's aggressive actions, the belief in his own impunity influenced Putin's decision to launch a major war against Ukraine.

With its beginning, after certain hesitations and doubts of partners about Ukraine's ability to resist the "second army of the world", the moment of truth came. It happened when the countries of the community of democracies seemed to finally understand the falsity of their previous policy towards Russia and the possible catastrophic consequences of the victory of the Putin regime not only for Ukraine but also for themselves, for their usual way of life. Without massive military, financial and economic assistance from the anti-Putin coalition, in the formation and functioning of which the USA plays a decisive role, our effective resistance to the Russian invasion would be impossible, despite the heroism of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the phenomenal endurance and unity of Ukrainians. The phrase "We will help Ukraine as much as it will be necessary for its victory" has become an almost obligatory part of the speeches on military issues of most Western politicians.

The volumes, range and terms of the supply of weapons – the main element of Western aid to Ukraine –  depend on many, sometimes objective factors (such as the availability of one or another type of weaponry in certain countries). At the same time, it is obvious that this process is negatively affected by a certain blurring of our partners' vision of the final outcome of the war, namely, what the West puts into the concepts of "victory of Ukraine" and "defeat of Russia."

The fundamental issue in this context is the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Based on the norms of international law, Ukraine's borders should be restored as they were when it gained independence. The support of this approach by the international community is evidenced by its almost complete non-recognition (with the exception of some Russian satellites) of Russia's attempts to annex Crimea or the territories of Ukraine occupied during the war. In their latest statement, the leaders of the G7 states demand from Russia "a complete and unconditional withdrawal of troops from the territory of Ukraine."

What is missing? Clear and unambiguous statements of support not only for the law, but also for Ukraine's actionsaimed at returning to the borders of 1991, including the de-occupation of Crimea. This unequivocal statement is necessary in order for the concept of "a fair peace" (formulation from the last telephone conversation between the American and Ukrainian presidents and the statement of the "seven") to acquire, if not clear, at least clearer parameters. 85% of Ukrainians stand for the return of all occupied territories without exception. This is to the point that "only the people of Ukraine should decide when and on what terms to end the war."

Similar certainty and unanimity are needed on the question of the expediency of negotiations with Putin. The latest attempt in this matter to "set the ball rolling" was the statement of the US president (at a joint press conference in Washington with the French president) about his readiness to sit down at the negotiating table with the Kremlin leader if he is ready to end the war (in my opinion, these words of Joe Biden were said rather as a gesture towards the guest –  Emmanuel Macron). As you know, the response from Moscow was almost instantaneous: not interested, unless it is about ending the war on Russian terms.

It seems that this idea should be put to rest, as well as the illusion of usefulness of telephone conversations with Putin. Raising the topic of security guarantees for the aggressor is even more counterproductive, in fact – it is in line with the Russian narrative, which was used to justify the war against Ukraine. The favorite rhetorical device of French intellectuals: "Listen, not everything is so simple..." – obviously contradicts the brutal truth of the Russian war against Ukraine. All this is perceived by the Russian leadership exclusively as a sign of weakness and only strengthens its aggressive impulses, and is also used by Russian propaganda to force the Russian population to fake that the "special operation" is justified and is going according to the plan.

Having almost disappeared from the official discourse for a while, the thesis about the possibility of reaching a compromise with Russia "to stop the bloodshed" continues to circulate in some government institutions and expert circles. The danger of such an approach also lies in the fact that it, in fact, is aimed at diminishing the international subjectivity of Ukraine, arguing for the expediency of "ending the war" through a radical weakening or even termination of support for our state.

Currently, this support is based on the maintenance of favorable public sentiments in our partner countries.According to the European Commission department, which constantly monitors the situation in this area, in 12 European countries, the USA and Canada, the level of support for actions aimed at military and economic aid to Ukraine and increased sanctions pressure on Russia remains within the range of 66-71%. It is very important that this position withstood the tests of winter, inflation, and the increase in the price of energy resources, which occupy significantly higher levels in the life priorities of Western citizens, compared to the war in Ukraine. To a large extent, it will depend on the efforts of the leadership of the partner countries aimed at supporting the most vulnerable population groups and explaining to the general public the disastrous consequences for the entire democratic world of even partial implementation of Putin's plans.

The Great War in Ukraine has been going on for almost ten months. Now even more than at the beginning of the aggression, it is clear that there is no alternative to the military defeat of Putin's Russia and there cannot be. The fate of the war will be decided on the battlefield. In order to maintain victory over the enemy, which will continue to dominate us with its resource base, Ukraine must have an advantage in the quality of weapons and obtain them in accordance with its military needs, having, albeit coordinated with donors, freedom of action.

This is the only way to prevent the war in Ukraine from turning into a "big war between NATO and Russia", the danger of which the Secretary General of the Alliance once again warned the world about. This is the only way to deprive Russia of the ability to intimidate its immediate neighbors and Europe in general, to pose a constant threat to both European and global stability (for example, through the development of in-depth military-political cooperation with Iran).

Regarding blackmail with nuclear and other WMD. The most effective way to put Russian extremists in their place is to be ready to give them a devastating response, which modern types of even non-nuclear weapons allow, since the use of WMD by the Putin regime against Ukraine poses a threat to the vital interests of the entire democratic world, primarily NATO members.

Russia's intention to launch massive missile and drone attacks was quite predictable, but a real (if CNN is to be believed) chance for Ukraine to receive Patriot air defense systems appeared only now, when 50% of our energy infrastructure has already been destroyed. Discussions about supplying Ukraine with the latest tanks, aircraft and other types of powerful, non-Soviet weapons have acquired an almost "epic" character. Meanwhile, Putin continues to play in advance, manipulating the fear factor.

The relevant decisions of our key partners should not depend on the desire to preserve the channels of diplomatic communication with the Kremlin, if only because the floodgates of these channels are opened or closed solely at the will of the Kremlin "captains" and in accordance with their interests. It would also be necessary to get rid of the fear of Russian "turmoil". It is impossible to predict what kind of political configuration we will see in Russia even in the short term, and it is necessary to stop Russian aggression now, because the continuation of the "war of attrition" benefits Russia and distances Ukraine from achieving its strategic goal.

Read this article in russian and Ukrainian.