FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
If the growing pessimism among those closely following the war in Ukraine is justified, then any sense of goodwill generated by the NATO summit may soon disappear.
“Daddy’s come home,” the White House declared, welcoming Donald Trump’s return from last week’s NATO summit. That social media post was a reference, both triumphant and mocking, to the title bestowed on Trump by Mark Rutte, NATO’s secretary-general. Rutte might argue that self-abasement is a small price to pay to keep the alliance together. And European leaders seemed broadly pleased, after the first NATO summit of Trump’s second term.
Fears that the US president would walk out of the summit, or even the alliance itself, did not materialize. All European NATO members have now pledged to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense in the broad sense. One European leader lists three key achievements from the summit. First, NATO has refocused on its core mission, which is deterring Russia. Second, the alliance is returning to Cold War levels of defense spending in response to Russia’s continued military buildup. Third, as European defense spending increases, NATO will become a more balanced alliance between the United States and Europe.
The fact that the NATO summit took place so soon after the US military strikes on Iran also changed the atmosphere. Trump arrived in good spirits, and his willingness to bomb Iran’s Fordow nuclear plant allayed European fears that he would always avoid the use of force. Trump also had a friendly meeting with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, repairing some of the damage that was done after the two leaders’ disastrous meeting at the White House in February.
But while things are looking up for Ukraine diplomatically, the war itself appears to be getting worse. Some NATO leaders fear that the situation on the front lines could seriously deteriorate by this fall. That would be far more significant than any paper commitments made in last week’s NATO communiqué. Military assessments suggest that the Russian and Ukrainian militaries are approaching the point of exhaustion. But while Russia can probably maintain the current level of operations for another year, Ukraine could reach a turning point within six months unless it receives significant new military support.
Following the positive Zelensky-Trump meeting, there are hopes that Ukraine will receive new supplies of Patriot missile defense systems from the US, as well as Himars artillery rockets. With Ukraine’s air defenses weakened, Patriot missiles are much needed. But, as always, Trump was vague about providing new munitions and could easily change his mind or forget. There are also some shortcomings, especially in the number of Ukrainian troops, that the country’s Western allies cannot remedy. Russia is thought to have lost more than a million troops, killed or wounded, in the conflict. But Ukrainian losses have also been heavy, and Russia’s population is about four times that of Ukraine.
The increasing intensity of Russian missile attacks on Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is also damaging Ukrainian morale. Without a clear vision of victory, or at least an end to the war, a sense of hopelessness risks taking hold of the country. The changing mood within the Ukrainian government is reflected in the urgency with which it is now privately calling for a ceasefire. A year or two ago, such calls would have been considered defeatism. Now they are made with increasing insistence in closed-door meetings between Ukrainian and Western leaders.
But European policymakers have little faith that Russia is capable of agreeing to a ceasefire. One senior official believes that Russia’s main goal now is to capture Odessa, which Vladimir Putin considers a historically Russian city. Without Odessa, Ukraine would lose access to its main port.
A group of former European leaders, including Sweden’s Carl Bildt and Finland’s Sanna Marin, visited Ukraine recently and noted the deteriorating mood. They wrote afterward that “while Ukrainians will never stop resisting, without more military support, Ukraine could lose more territory. More cities could be captured.” Unofficially, some Western officials are even more gloomy, warning of a risk of “catastrophic failure” if the Ukrainian military is stretched to breaking point and does not receive a significant increase in military and financial aid from its Western allies.
Of course, wars are unpredictable and moods can change. Some in the West argue that Ukraine can hold its own over the next year. They claim that, despite great effort and losses, Russia has only managed to capture an additional 0.25 percent of Ukrainian territory over the past year. Optimists argue that Ukrainian expertise in drone warfare has made it impossible for large groups of Russian troops to advance en masse. They also argue that, even if Russia breaks through Ukrainian lines, it lacks the mechanized divisions to capitalize on this achievement.
The conventional wisdom has been proven wrong many times before in this war. But if the growing pessimism among those closely following the war in Ukraine is justified, then any sense of goodwill generated by the NATO summit could soon fade. The NATO secretary general is known for his optimistic nature and perpetual smile. But even Rutte may struggle to keep smiling until the end of the year. / Adapted from "Pamphlet" by "FinancialTimes"
Lini një Përgjigje