Derek H. Burney: Ukraine's greatest vulnerability is the fatigue of its allies

Embattled Ukraine is on the horns of a dilemma. The spring counteroffensive did not go as well as expected. Neither the United States nor the European Union gained approval for substantial increases in weaponry, upwards of US$50 billion (C$67 billion) each. A sense of a prolonged stalemate is emerging as a regrettable degree of fatigue, if not skepticism, affects the U.S.

and other western allies of Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia, sensing weakness, is intensifying its attacks, launching last week a major barrage of missiles and drone attacks on several Ukrainian cities. Any backsliding on Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s western support now will compound his ability to sustain the battle against Russia and his domestic challenges.

Emulating the pattern of Russian victories over Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler, President Vladimir Putin has more than doubled his troops in Ukraine, including many prisoners and with scant regard for casualties, to overwhelm Ukraine’s beleaguered forces. He wants a deadlock or better — at least until the U.S.

presidential election brings the prospect of a president more willing to make concessions. Washington and Kyiv disagreed on basic strategy for the spring offensive. The U.S. favoured a decisive concentration of forces in a single assault — a fundamental principle of war — while Ukraine, hampered by deficient air power and concerns about casualties, preferred a three pronged attack across the 970 kilometre front.

(Eerily reminiscent of the debate between the American general Dwight D. Eisenhower, and his British counterpart, Bernard L. Montgomery, on the Allied invasion of Germany in 1945, when Eisenhower’s preference for a multiprong attack prevailed over Montgomery’s single thrust option, ultimately enabling Berlin’s capture exclusively by the Soviets.) The allied effort has been too little, too late; more anxious to avoid confronting rather than defeating Russia — vacillation that gave enough aid to Ukraine to survive but not to win and gave Russia time to fortify its defences.

As key allies watch and procrastinate on the sidelines, courage and conviction rest entirely with the Ukrainians. While political paralysis in the U.S. and Europe undermines the supply of money and arms — funds that would go primarily to U.S. and EU weapon producers — military spending in Russia is accelerating to more than US$100 billion this year, boosted by growing oil revenues and one million military shells from North Korea.

Sanctions have failed dismally. Despite blatantly violating a fundamental tenet of the UN charter, Russia sits smugly on, and has even chaired, the UN Security Council, making a complete mockery of the world body. In contrast, when the Soviet Union callously attacked Finland in 1939, the enfeebled League of Nations summoned the will to expel it, as it had done earlier with Germany and Japan.

While a majority in both parties in Washington still support supplying aid to Ukraine, a growing bloc of Republicans oppose more aid unless it is accompanied by money and policy changes affecting security on southern border. Hungary’s Viktor Orban, who has close relations with Putin, vetoed the EU aid package in mid December.

However, the EU did agree to initiate membership procedures for Ukraine. Richard Haass, former head of the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. think tank, contends that because Ukraine has little chance of recovering the 20 per cent of its territory occupied by Russia, it should realistically focus more on survival than victory, and move to ceasefire negotiations with Russia.

Given that Putin is known for not keeping his word, any agreement would have to include solid security guarantees. Peace would also permit more grain exports by sea, not rail, and help make Ukraine economically viable. But why would Putin concede anything? NATO membership should also be kept on the table and not abandoned as the price for any negotiated settlement.

The U.S. administration must be a bit weary as it tries to manage serious threats on three different fronts: the Middle East, Ukraine and Taiwan. It may be time for new blood, with the intellect, fortitude and bipartisan flavour to lead on the challenges and, in the process, stimulate better support from the American public.

A prominent group of former U.S. officials, including Larry Summers, Robert Zoellick and Philip Zelikow are advancing, with the support of prominent legal scholars like Laurence Tribe, a compelling supplement to direct U.S. military aid. They advocate for transferring more than US$300 billion in frozen Russian reserve funds to Ukraine as payment for damages caused by Russia’s attacks.

The objective is to look beyond weapon systems to solidify Ukraine’s ability to survive and defend itself economically and militarily over the long term. In an email late November, Zoellick told me that Zelikow organized a group of international lawyers in London, Europe and Japan to write a legal justification for such a move.

Tribe has written one as well. Summers has endeavoured to get Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, to support the initiative. The American trio believe that the G7 should lead. Funds could be directed to defence production as well as civilian infrastructure, giving Ukraine tangible and moral support and tempering the military stalemate.

Together with new security commitments from several allies, and a fast track to EU membership, Ukraine would be solidified for a long haul. Writing supportively in the Atlantic last month , Anne Applebaum contended that “whatever reputational damage this transfer of assets might cause for the West, it is vanishingly small in comparison with the reputational damage that the West will suffer if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine.” The U.S.

administration seems to be supportive but is not adept at moving matters forward even when no legislation is required. As Summers, Zelikow and Zoellick have written , it is time for President Joe Biden to tell his advisors, “This is the right thing to do. Find a way.” Zelenskyy’s greatest vulnerability is inconsistent support from his putative allies.

If Ukraine is abandoned like Afghanistan, the political fallout will be devastating for the U.S. and Europe. History tells us that it is no time for appeasement, but that, regrettably, is the chronic weakness of western democracies. National Post Derek H. Burney is a former, 30 year career diplomat who served as Ambassador to the United States of America from 1989 1993..