The deputy director of the British Royal Institute for Joint Research (RUSI) Jonathan Eyal analyzes the indirect deviation from the initially successful strategy of the West regarding the support of 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 remained in power, but also actively functions.
However, international support for Ukraine is experiencing significant disruptions. The American policy regarding the supply of weapons to Kyiv has become the subject of deep disagreements in the political circles of the United States.
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 clear that without receiving weapons in the next few months, it will be difficult for the Kyivans to maintain their defense.
Political scientist Jonathan Eyal notes that the West got it wrong in almost everything. Even with information from special services about Russia's preparations for an invasion of Ukraine and even with the exact date of the attack, Western governments did not expect the need to supply weapons for a long war.
Western governments planned a limited anti-Russian campaign that involved the creation of a government-in-exile and limited support for resistance forces.
However, the Russians were unable to succeed in the first stage of the invasion, and the Ukrainians courageously defended their country, making excessive Western support measures unnecessary.
American and European strategies have changed, and they are now actively arming 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 backed down from these positions.
Instead, the US and European governments have limited armed support to Ukraine, believing that this could lead to an escalation of the conflict with Russia. US President Joe Biden said that his country does not plan a direct confrontation with Russia on Ukrainian territory.
This approach limited the actions of the Ukrainian troops, who had to limit themselves to attacks only on Russian forces on their own territory, without launching a war on the territory of the enemy, as any military strategist would do.
However, probably the biggest mistake Western governments have made, according to the political scientist, has been their belief that time is working for them.
At the beginning of the conflict, this was certainly true, notes Eyal. When the alliance, which consisted of about 50 Western nations, imposed the most extensive economic sanctions against Russia and froze most of its foreign assets.
The same alliance united to provide military and financial support to Ukraine.
In light of the fact that Russia's economy does not exceed the economy of an average country in the European Union, it was assumed that sooner or later the Russians would have to withdraw from Ukraine, tailing off, 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 has also failed to take into account the resilience and resourcefulness of Russia, which has used the war as a catalyst for its industrial sector and its army has all the ammunition it needs.
After that, there were other events that diverted attention from Ukraine: from the possible victory of Trump in the US presidential elections to the conflict in Gaza. Thus, time does not work, and perhaps has never worked in favor of the West, summarizes Jonathan Eyal.
However, in his opinion, the situation with Ukraine is far from hopeless.
The losses of the Russians in this war are huge - about 100,000 killed and thousands of units of destroyed equipment. Therefore, although the Russians will probably be able to keep 20% of the Ukrainian territory they have captured, they may not have enough strength to launch an offensive and completely crush Ukraine, the political scientist believes.
He also does not rule out the possibility that the Biden administration will get 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 their rhetoric regarding this war," the author of the article quotes Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on International Relations.
The expert also points out that none of the influential Western patrons of Ukraine has yet shown willingness to invest in it more than they have already promised.
Thus, the first year of the war was marked by unexpected Ukrainian bravery, the second by Ukrainian resilience, and the third may turn out to be a bitter disappointment, summarizes Jonathan Eyal.
