TO SUPPORT OR NOT TO SUPPORT?

Heavy positional battles on the Ukrainian front go in parallel with heated political debates in the US and the EU over the term of the Westers support to Ukraine. Apparently, opinions vary greatly, despite the publicly loud vocal support of unconditional support for Kiev proposed by all the politicians. It seems that large-scale support for Ukraine is becoming an increasingly relevant issue on the Western foreign policy agenda. The likelihood of its reduction makes leading Western politicians even more active in urging their supporters not to reduce the pace and volume of aid amid the uncertain future.

Not on the priority list?

In early October, both chambers of the US Congress passed a 45-day draft budget providing funding for the government and support for victims of natural disasters. Yet there was nothing about the provision of aid to Ukraine.

Experts and observers now wonder whether the Biden administration has the means for Ukraine at all. At the same time, US and European officials are arguing how long Europe will be able to meet Ukrainian needs, especially the economic and humanitarian ones, if the US suspends funding completely. After all, it will be difficult for Europe to produce the necessary volume of weapons on short notice compared to the US.

President Biden supports a phased approach and initially requested $24b from the Congress to support Kiev at least for the next few months, expecting that this would be an acceptable option for the US lawmakers.

The situation depends largely on how Republicans in the House of Representatives resolve the political dispute that led to the resignation of Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Some of them criticised McCarthy for his too zealous approach in his support of funding for Ukraine. At the same time, the candidate to replace him, Jim Jordan (R-OH), said that if elected, he would not submit the bill on funding Ukraine to the House of Representatives.

It is quite possible that the Democrats will be able to make the Republicans change their mind by making some political concessions. For example, by introducing tougher measures to limit illegal migration across the US-Mexico border. But these are just speculations with no clear answers yet.

Between Euro-idealism and hardcore pragmatism

On October 3, in parallel with a joint session of the Congress and for the first time in history almost all of the EU's top diplomats met outside the union - in Kyiv. They wanted to demonstrate their support for Ukraine and draw the attention of the European public to the problem of assistance to this country.

European diplomats agreed that over the past 18 months EU member states have agreed on 11 packages of economic sanctions against Russia, provided training for the Ukrainian military and, for the first time in the union's history funded the delivery of lethal weapons outside the EU. They also agreed that much more effort was needed, as hostilities continue unabated, while the Ukrainian army's counteroffensive is facing serious difficulties, as Kyiv increasingly recognises.

European allies of Ukraine are also suffering from difficulties, such as the economic decline and the need to maintain political unity amid the growing criticism of growing support to Kiev. For example, as a result of the 2023 parliamentary elections in Slovakia, Direction – Social Democracy (Smer) led by Robert Fico, who promised "not to send a single bullet" to Ukraine, took most of the seats in the parliament.

In Poland, the government is involved in a dispute with Ukraine over grain exports. The ruling Law and Justice party, which is going to be re-elected in October, is trying to reassure voters that it is not going to put Ukraine's interests above those of Polish citizens. Last month, Poland said it would not send any additional weapons once it fulfils its current commitments.

At the summit in Granada, Spain, French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Olaf Scholz tried to persuade their colleagues to adopt the EU reform programme in order to facilitate the procedure of making urgent decisions. The EU head persuaded his colleagues to set a conditional date for Ukraine's admission to the union. The so-called "new countries" of the organisation insisted on retaining the right of veto and the consensus principle of decision-making.

Considering the anticipated elections throughout Europe next year, some moderate leaders grappling with growing populist sentiments at home countries now have to make a choice between Euro-idealism and hard pragmatism.

EU to introduce major reforms

The inability of France and Germany as close allies to agree on the timing and nature of reforms shows the scale of existing problems, also associated with the EU enlargement by 2030. And these problems concern not only the member states, but also the key individuals within the EU leadership.

Last month, the presidents of Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Albania stated that the enlargement should happen "no later than 2030", backing EU chief Charles Michel on the issue. However, the EC President Ursula von der Leyen insists that "accession should be based on merit". She believes that the progress these countries have made in harmonising their laws with EU rules and standards should dictate the pace of membership, not some arbitrary deadline. But it is well known that the bureaucratic pace of harmonisation with EU rules can take several years or more.

In addition, the southern EU countries try to address immigration problems amid the growing number of arriving refugees and their death toll. However, Poland and Hungary oppose the planned changes.

The Polish government criticises the EU plans to overhaul rules on refugees and illegal migrants, calling it a diktat from Brussels and Berlin. "We are not afraid of diktat ... from Berlin and Brussels," Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said in Granada. "The plan is to allow illegal immigrants into countries that do not want to accept them and impose draconian penalties... Poland categorically rejects this."

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban went even further, calling a proposed law that would oblige EU states to accept some migrants or pay those who do so a "legitimate rape."

Contradictions between EU countries negatively influence the implementation of the programme of further assistance to Ukraine. Therefore, much depends on the situation on the frontline and the Ukrainian counter-offensive.

Slow progress

Speaking about the situation on the frontline, President Zelensky points out three problems of the AFU: minefields, lack of ammunition and anti-aircraft equipment, and harsh winter conditions.

Under these circumstances, Ukraine prefers to talk not about breakthroughs but about effective defence, including the provision of modern air defence systems to Kiev. Relevant negotiations have been held at the European Political Community summit in Granada. As a result, the EU leaders agreed to strengthen the Ukrainian air defence system.

However, Zelensky's critics were quick to say that all these measures were extremely insufficient. In contrast, Ukrainian authorities insist on the success of the Ukrainian army in Zaporozhye and in the Black Sea. At the same time, Ukrainian officials also refer to the statements of European military officials.

For example, the British Minister of State for Defence, James Heappey, said in his interview with the Ukrainian European Pravda that despite Ukraine's slow progress, "no one can say that it is not there". He believes that "Ukraine has functionally defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet".

But apparently, Moscow does not think so and says that its military plans remain unchanged. Speaking at the Valdai forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Ukraine lost 1,900 armoured vehicles of various modifications during the summer counter-offensive.

Either way, the war in Ukraine continues, and the risks of escalation are still there. Negotiations and discussions on international platforms often boil down to the necessity of supporting Ukraine, especially by providing humanitarian support. Even critics of the war are unanimous in this, unlike military aid. But the main question—when and under what circumstances the war in Ukraine will end—continues to hang in the air. There are various scenarios, but none of them looks realistic at the moment.