UKRAINIAN DILEMMA

The war between Israel and Hamas has seriously affected Washington's plans to provide financial assistance to Ukraine. White House spokesman John Kirby had to admit that the US had already spent 96% of the more than $60b-worth funds allocated for assistance to Ukraine.

In general, recent information more or less clearly shows a trend where the increasing number of US politicians change their attitude towards the Russian-Ukrainian war, especially towards Washington's support for Ukraine. This mainly includes the Republican congressmen, who are seriously preparing for the 2024 presidential election.

Republicans vs. Democrats

The Republicans are highly critical of the current administration's foreign policy. The lack of progress in the Ukrainian counteroffensive is not the only reason for the growing discontent of political elites in the US with President Biden's foreign policy. Corruption schemes of his son Hunter and other family members, in which the American president himself may be involved, the migration crisis on the Mexican border, as well as the new conflict in the Middle East, which, as many believe, Washington, in fact, missed, have put Biden in a very difficult situation. Now he has to simultaneously solve two issues: helping both Ukraine and Israel and responding to criticism for drawbacks and blunders in other areas.

Also, back in late October, the new speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, said that he would not support the $106b aid package for Ukraine and Israel. The Republican majority links further support for Kiev to how well the Ukrainian leadership will do the homework demanded earlier by Washington. This includes a list of priority reforms that the US demanded from Ukraine, expecting their rapid and effective implementation to be a prerequisite for Washington's further aid to Kiev. The key requirement is to strengthen the fight against corruption in the country as soon as possible.

At the same time, the actual suspension of the Ukrainian counteroffensive provides further support to the argumentation of the critics of the Biden administration to limit aid to Ukraine.

Biden has made it clear that he would not heed the sentiments of US lawmakers and would block any congressional decision if it did not take into account his condition regarding aid to Kiev.

Impeachment again?

Apparently, the Republican majority could not but respond to such a position. Given the critical amount of unanswered questions to Biden, House Speaker Mike Johnson stated his intention to raise the issue of impeachment of the president. He believes this decision will be made in the near future.

One of the main reasons for the impeachment is anti-corruption proceedings. Central among them is the so-called Hunter Biden case associated with the president's son charged with many cases of fraud, including in Ukraine. It is believed that Joe Biden knew about his son's deeds and was even involved in them.

It is known that when Donald Trump was president, he asked Vladimir Zelensky to assist in the investigation of Hunter Biden, who was on the board of directors of the Burisma gas production company for several years. Zelensky claimed ignorance of the details of the Hunter Biden case. On September 23, 2020, the criminal case involving Biden Jr. was closed in Ukraine due to the lack of corpus delicti. A month later, Hunter's father won the US election.

The case has not been closed in the US, and it is among the priority cases investigated by the US Attorney General.

In April, the Newsweek reported that former US President Donald Trump was planning to take revenge on Ukrainian leader Zelensky for refusing to investigate the Biden Jr. case.

There are quite a few Trump supporters among the Republican majority in Congress. It is therefore possible that the refusal to link the aid to Ukraine and Israel comes from them as well.

Either way, on October 3, the House of Representatives approved a bill on aid to Israel without mentioning Ukraine, which shows that passions are running high in Washington, with Ukraine being only a pretext. The main issue is Biden, rather the prevention of his re-election for the next term.

Zaluzhny's bad timing for intervention

Recently, the British The Economist interviewd the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army, General Valeriy Zaluzhny, which caused a great resonance. In the article, the general talks about the positional stalemate on the Ukrainian frontline and possible ways out of it.

Zaluzhny actually admitted the failure of initial plans for the Ukrainian counter-offensive and stated that with such a balance of forces, no major victories on the frontline should be expected in future. He added that according to initial plans, the Ukrainian army was supposed to advance at about 30 kilometres per day during the breakthrough of the Russian defence. The troops were expected to enter Crimea in four months. However, at the very beginning of the offensive, the army got stuck in unprecedented minefields and the offensive effectively stalled.

There is no doubt that Zaluzhny's revelations were coordinated with his superiors. At least Zelensky could not have been unaware of his commander-in-chief's plans to tell Western publications about the situation at the front. However, critical discussions of the article in Ukraine and numerous questions to the Ukrainian leadership from the West, which has made numerous public assurances that everything on the front was going in the way Ukraine needed, made Zelensky's office reconsider its attitude to the article.

Deputy head of the presidential office, Igor Zhovkva, said that the article raised more questions than answers. Then Zelensky himself made a comment saying there was no stalemate and that worse things were left behind, recalling the critical months at the beginning of the war. "But we strongly believed, fought and won.... A few confident tricks, military operations… You definitely remember how the Kharkiv region was liberated, you remember what happened in Kherson. So there are difficulties, different opinions. But I believe that we do not have the right to even think of them and put our hands down. Because we don't have any alternative!" Zelensky said.

It is true that there may be different opinions, but Zaluzhny is not "different opinions". He is not Arestovich, who criticises the Ukrainian authorities and who, incidentally, was an adviser to the the Ukrainian president. Zaluzhny is the chief of the Ukrainian army, who has first-hand knowledge of the progress at the front. He is directly responsible for the situation there.

It is increasingly clear that there are quite serious disagreements within the Ukrainian leadership over further developments and strategy of action, and it is possible that they may deepen over time.

Negotiations started?

Yet, we can see various articles about possible talks between Washington and Moscow in the Western media.

For instance, NBC News reports that the American and European officials have started discussions with Ukrainian authorities on possible peace talks with Russia. It is even possible that the parties are talking about what Kiev will have to give up in order to reach a ceasefire agreement. It is claimed that Ukraine likely has time until the end of the year before more urgent discussions on peace talks begin.

All this is possible in exchange for some security guarantees from NATO, even without Ukraine's formal membership in the alliance. Washington is also concerned about the lowering public interest in the Russia-Ukraine war amid the war between Israel and Hamas.

However, this information has yet to be confirmed by real facts. Everyone understands that the final decision on holding peace talks should be made, at least formally, by Ukraine and then Russia. But currently, when neither Moscow nor Kyiv are ready for such talks, any statements about them are only hypothetical.

Amid the current balance of power, a purely military victory for either side is impossible. Russia is stronger in economic, military, mobilisation and organisational terms, while Ukraine's partners, on whom Kiev's fully dependent, will do their best to prevent Moscow from gaining a complete victory over Kiev.

On November 8, the G7 foreign ministers met to assure Ukraine of their continued support. However, assurances of assistance are the least of what Kiev really needs today.

On the other hand, the G7, and above all the US, needs to stabilise the situation on at least one of the two fronts. So far, Israel is coping with Hamas on its own, but it is doing so with increased military and diplomatic support from Washington. This means that Ukraine will have to wait a little longer. Will Russia wait?