Jonathan Eyal, deputy director of the UK's Royal United Studies Institute (RUSI), examines an indirect departure from the West's initially successful strategy of supporting Ukraine. In his article for The Straits Times, he notes that, in the third year of the conflict, Ukraine remains an independent state, and the government of President Zelensky, whom Russia tried to overthrow, not only remains in power, but is actively functioning.
However, international support for Ukraine is experiencing significant disruptions. American policy on supplying weapons to Kyiv has become a subject of deep disagreement in United States political circles.
Although the majority of Europeans continue to support Ukraine, only 10% believe in its victory, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) reports, based on the results of public opinion polls.
At the same time, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are gradually but noticeably retreating on the battlefield.
It is still too early to conclude whether Ukraine has won or lost the war, but it is becoming clear that without receiving weapons over the next few months, it will be difficult for Kyivans to maintain their defenses.
Political scientist Jonathan Eyal notes that the West got almost everything wrong. Even with intelligence information about Russia's preparations for an invasion of Ukraine and even with the exact date of the attack, Western governments did not anticipate the need to supply weapons for a protracted war.
Western governments planned a limited anti-Russian campaign, which included the creation of a government in exile and limited support for resistance forces.
However, the Russians were unable to succeed in the first phase of the invasion, and the Ukrainians courageously defended their country, making excessive Western support unnecessary.
American and European strategies have changed, and they are now actively providing weapons to Ukraine in the largest conflict in Europe since World War II.
However, the supply of weapons was chaotic and often delayed. Initially, the West refused to provide artillery, tanks, and aircraft, but then retreated from these positions.
Instead, the US and European governments have limited military support for Ukraine, believing that this could lead to an escalation of the conflict with Russia. US President Joe Biden has stated that his country does not plan a direct confrontation with Russia on Ukrainian territory.
This approach limited the actions of Ukrainian troops, who had to limit themselves to attacks only on Russian forces on their own territory, without launching a war on enemy territory, as any military strategist would do.
However, probably the biggest mistake that, according to the political scientist, Western governments made was their confidence that time was working on their behalf.
This was certainly true at the beginning of the conflict, Eyal notes, when an alliance of about 50 Western nations imposed the most sweeping economic sanctions against Russia and froze most of its foreign assets.
The same alliance has come together to provide Ukraine with military and financial support.
In light of the fact that Russia's economy is no larger than that of an average European Union country, it was assumed that sooner or later the Russians would have to retreat from Ukraine, tails turned, the author of the article claims.
However, this assumption turned out to be inaccurate. The West failed to take into account that much of Russia's economic hub had shifted to Asia, and that many Asian countries, including China and India, were ready to trigger sanctions.
The expert believes that the West also failed to take into account the resilience and resourcefulness of Russia, which used the war as a catalyst for its industrial sector, and its army has all the necessary ammunition.
Since then, other events have taken the spotlight off Ukraine, from Trump's possible victory in the US presidential election to the conflict in Gaza. Thus, time is not, and perhaps never has been, working in the West's favor, summarizes Jonathan Eyal.
However, in his opinion, the situation with Ukraine is far from hopeless.
Russian losses in this war are enormous – about 100,000 killed and thousands of pieces of equipment destroyed. Therefore, although the Russians will probably be able to hold on to the 20% of Ukrainian territory they have captured, they may not have enough strength to launch an offensive and completely defeat Ukraine, the political scientist believes.
He also does not rule out the possibility that the Biden administration will receive congressional approval for a new military aid package for Ukraine, and the Europeans will provide even more weapons.
However, “in order to justify further European support for Ukraine, EU leaders will have to change the rhetoric regarding this war,” the author of the article quotes Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The expert also points out that none of Ukraine's influential Western backers have yet shown a willingness to invest more in it than they have already promised.
Thus, the first year of the war was marked by unexpected Ukrainian bravery, the second by Ukraine's resilience, and the third may turn out to be a bitter disappointment, summarizes Jonathan Eyal.
