Experts say that, despite the difficulties encountered, our country will ultimately be able to receive financial support from its partners.
Our country began to have problems with the allocation of funds both for the supply of weapons and for maintaining the economy from Western partners. As NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg recently emphasized, the situation for Ukraine could get worse if the West does not increase arms supplies. In his opinion, Kyiv is in a “critical situation.” “We need to prepare for bad news,” Stoltenberg said, “But we must support Ukraine in both bad and good times.” However, the Senate is in no hurry to allocate funds; discussions are ongoing on this issue in the European Union. And some politicians generally say that it is not worth helping Ukraine with weapons. Why is the West delaying the supply of aid to Ukraine and how can all this end?
In one package with Mexico
Back in September, the White House warned that money for Ukraine was running out and asked Congress to approve a $106 billion supplemental funding package containing more than $61 billion in funding for Ukraine, as well as spending on aid to Israel, Taiwan and border security. . However, this initiative was stalled by far-right Republicans in the House of Representatives. First, the House refused to trust the speaker, then elected a new one, and then the new speaker, Mike Johnson, proposed dividing aid to Ukraine and Israel, and again the allocation of funds reached a dead end.
However, the White House is doing everything (or, in any case, very confidently declaring) possible to rectify the situation.
White House Budget Director Shalanda Young said that Ukraine needs help very urgently
“There is no magic funding source that can meet this need. We're out of money and almost out of time. Cutting off the flow of American weapons and equipment would bring Ukraine to its knees on the battlefield, not only jeopardizing Ukraine's gains but also increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories,” she wrote in a letter to leaders of both parties.
Money, according to Young, is needed not only for weapons supplies, but also to support the economy.
“If Ukraine's economy collapses, they won't be able to continue fighting, period. Putin understands this well, which is why Russia has made destroying Ukraine's economy a central part of its strategy - as you can see from its attacks on Ukraine's grain exports and energy infrastructure,” Young said.
The official noted that the allocation of money to Ukraine will also benefit the US economy.
National Security Adviser to the US President Jake Sullivan also called on Congress to support the White House's request for additional funding for Ukraine, warning that refusing to vote for it would help the Russian Federation.
According to a Biden adviser, “any member of Congress who does not support funding for Ukraine is voting for an outcome that makes it easier for Putin to win.”
“That is, a vote against supporting Ukraine is a vote for improving Putin’s strategic positions. This is simply an inevitable reality,” he emphasized.
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Republican Johnson, for his part, said that he did not find the most important thing in the White House address: an answer to Republican concerns about the lack of a strategy on Ukraine. According to him, the White House has not voiced thoughts on ways to resolve the conflict and “a plan for adequate control over the aid allocated by American taxpayers.”
Johnson announced a new condition for the allocation of funds to Ukraine. Now the Republicans intend to consider the White House request only together with appropriations for protecting the border with Mexico.
“House Republicans have decided that any additional national security package must start at our own border. We believe that agreement can be found on the two issues if Senate Democrats and the White House negotiate intelligently ,” the speaker said.
There has been no agreement yet to allocate money for border security from the Biden administration.
Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, has already scheduled the first procedural vote on December 6 on an additional aid package for Ukraine, Israel, the Indo-Pacific countries and for humanitarian purposes in Gaza, proposed by Biden.
However, as The Hill notes , the bill is unlikely to pass, as Republicans have said they will vote against its consideration if it does not include measures to secure the US border with Mexico.
“On the one hand, you might think that this is some kind of whim of the Republicans. But in fact, this is an important issue for them, since their voters demanded it, ” political strategist Alexey Golobutsky says in a commentary to Apostrophe. “ The White House is trying to force US senators and congressmen to take the problem and the negative consequences of the delay in helping Ukraine more seriously .”
According to the expert, we must also make every effort to motivate American congressmen to vote for assistance to Ukraine in 2024. “ Because we simply can’t cope without this money, even if we suddenly stop stealing,” Golobutsky noted.
As it became known , President Zelensky wanted to join the fight for the allocation of funds. On December 5, he intended to speak to senators at a closed briefing and inform them about the state of war in Ukraine and the need for another package of military assistance.
Later, Zelensky literally at the last moment canceled his planned speech before US legislators. Zelensky also did not appear at an online briefing on Ukraine in the House of Representatives, lawmakers said.
Political football
There is also no final understanding yet about money from the European Union. As notes , EU member countries cannot yet agree on replenishing the joint budget, from which it is planned to allocate 50 billion for Ukraine.
“Failure to approve long-term funding, a separate €20 billion facility for arms purchases and the start of accession talks would be a blow to Kiev after the failure of its summer counter-offensive and growing concerns about waning Western support,” the FT writes.
EU efforts to reach a compromise have been hampered by the victory of the far right led by Geert Wilders in the Dutch elections last month and a recent German court ruling limiting government borrowing.
Geert Wilders has already stated: “I think Russia is the bad guy here. I believe that no matter what you think about Ukraine, no matter how corrupt it is, it is a sovereign country and Russia should not have started the war. But I believe that the Netherlands should not give weapons to Ukraine, because we have very few of them. Other countries are doing this. I believe there should be negotiations, not war.”
It is worth recalling that the Netherlands is one of the key countries in the so-called “aircraft coalition” for the supply of F-16s to Ukraine. The country promised to transfer 42 aircraft to Ukraine.
In addition, Hungary has traditionally blocked the allocation of funds.
FT calls consideration of EU funding for Ukraine a “political football”.
And one more moment that seems to be unrelated to future financing, but demonstrates the mood. Bulgarian President Rumen Radev used his veto power and blocked the supply of armored vehicles to Ukraine, already approved by the country’s parliament. We are talking about transferring 100 armored personnel carriers to us. The corresponding agreement was concluded by the Bulgarian Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense in August, and was ratified by the Bulgarian parliament at the end of November.
Although the armored personnel carriers intended for Ukraine were produced about 40 years ago and the Bulgarian Ministry of Internal Affairs called the equipment obsolete, Rumen Radev insists that these armored vehicles could find use within the country, for example, for border protection or to combat natural disasters.
“I am guided by the conviction that the safety, health and lives of Bulgarian citizens must be the top priority,” said the Bulgarian President.
“In Europe, there are now intense discussions about supporting Ukraine, ” Alexey Melnik, co-head of the security program at the Razumkov Center, noted in a comment to Apostrophe. “I attended two serious conferences in Brussels and Berlin, and all options for further developments in the situation were discussed there.” war. In the future, this will result in concrete decisions.”
Political scientist Yaroslav Makitra also agrees with Alexey Melnik.
“All the negative publications in the Western press about the failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive and the decline in support for Ukraine are nothing more than a discussion of Western elites. And the fact that it is going is good,” Makitra said in a comment to Apostrophe.
True, according to experts, much will depend on the Ukrainian authorities, on how they can communicate with European and American politicians.
They will give or they will not give
Political scientist Yaroslav Makitra highlighted the reasons why the West is delaying the allocation of aid to Ukraine.
“The first is the internal problems in Western countries that arose in connection with the elections. The second reason is that Ukraine was unable to show what it promised in the counteroffensive. And the third reason is that in the West they understand that the war is dragging on and they want to see the future, how much more help they need and what to allocate money for,” the political scientist noted.
“The key question for Europe is how to manage money correctly. It’s important for them to know the future, ” explains Alexey Melnik. “As for the money itself, it’s not such a big amount for them. It represents only 1% of the total EU budget.”
At the same time, experts note that in the West there are also moods not to help Ukraine.
“Some of the Western elites are determined not to provide assistance to Ukraine and thus force us to negotiate with Russia,” notes Yaroslav Makitra, “But they apparently do not understand how not providing assistance can speed up negotiations. Will Putin agree to them? And under what conditions? They must learn that the more powerful Ukraine is, the better for them.”
“Indeed, there are forces in the West that are in favor of making concessions to Russia, and this camp did not appear now and we need to take measures against it,” says Alexey Melnik. “We need to make an updated strategy, and also prove why negotiations relations with the Russian Federation will not suit not only Ukraine, but also the West.”
Alexey Melnik is convinced that our Western partners do not consider the surrender of our territories as a compromise with Russia.
But Alexey Golobutsky has a slightly different opinion. “If America set itself the goal of ensuring that Russia was not a structure of the global world, then it has already succeeded,” noted the political strategist, “The Americans want to end the war, but do not want to put pressure on the Ukrainian government, but strive to ensure that it itself decided on a truce.”
At the same time, all experts agree that Western assistance to Ukraine will not stop.
“We can’t panic now and say that everything is lost. Help is coming to us both military and economic. Of course, not in the sizes we would like. To put it simply, the accountant delays salaries indefinitely, and therefore we need to save. If, for example, some expensive purchases (offensive actions) were planned, then you need to temporarily abandon them and look for internal resources,” Melnik concluded.
“I think that by the end of the year the issue will be resolved with help in both America and Europe. And if this does not happen, which I doubt, then we need to switch to saving mode and look for resources within the country,” emphasized Yaroslav Makitra.
“Western partners will collect some amount, and we will have to find the rest from our own resources, otherwise we may die,” summarized Alexey Golobutsky.
