’The trip, which was viewed as a key opportunity by Ukrainian officials for Zelensky to sell the United States on how to support Ukraine going forward, failed to resonate in Washington.’, The Washington Post said about the Ukrainian President’s recent official visit to the US. A
As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has returned from Washington without a clear support of his so-called Victory Plan, Ukraine’s European allies face a dilemma of further backing Kyiv in its war against the Russian aggression under the changed circumstances or, taking steps towards peace. As the EU faces serious security and other challenges caused by the war in Ukraine, a record high migration, poor housing conditions, etc., European national leaders are at a crossroads: either they continue to finance a war between Ukraine and Russia and accept mass migration from outside Europe, or try to improve the standard of living of their own respective nations.
European politicians have already received a strong signal given that the results of the European Parliament elections in June made it clear that European citizens want a different EU. Voters called for a change and with this step, they gave the steering wheel in the hands of far-right parties in order to make a change in EU’s mainstream pro-migration and pro-Ukraine position. In addition to European elections, national elections in recent months have also brought a further surge of the far- right in some Member States.
From the Netherlands to Germany and Austria, voters expressed their urgent need for change not only concerning migration issues but also with regard to Ukraine, suggesting the need of an overall review of the EU’s policies. How swiftly and smoothly such a change can take place at EU level, depends on the willingness of the European Commission President to step back from some of her ambitions. At the same time, bureaucrats in Brussels should also be aware that voters will eventually be able to achieve a shift in mainstream political directions of the EU, however, right now, the only viable path to achieving this change is to support the far-right parties which can lead to further problems. In other words, while political change is likely to be a question of time, yet it risks shifting Europe even more rightward, straight into the strongly embracing arms of the far- right.
As war in Ukraine continues, there is a growing criticism of the EU’s policy towards Ukraine. Unless the current mainstream policy is ready to change its stance on Ukraine, the European far-right will remain the only force capable of making a real breakthrough. It also should be noted that European far-right parties maintain a traditionally good relationship with Russia, and there are numerous examples in Austria, Germany, France and other countries of where this ’special relationship’ with the Kremlin can lead and what kind of traps the EU and nations can fall in when flirting with Russia, ranging from unlawful party financing to adoption of ideologies.
For a growing number of voters, the fact that while the EU supports Ukraine with billions of euros, it shows no intention of improving the living conditions of its own citizens, nor does it come up with a vision to end the war, is becoming unacceptable. In addition, the system of payments to Ukraine appears to be transparent only up to the moment the funds are allocated. Financial aid packages often vanish as soon as they arrive in Ukraine, without any transparency requirements being met.
As far as the intention of peacemaking is concerned, it should be stressed that Zelenskyy’s Victory Plan is far away from what can be called a vision for how to end the war and reach a post-war settlement, but rather it is a compilation of military demands and calls for new donations. This poor strategy reveals that in Kyiv, not too much efforts have been put into the drafting of the plan, since it is just a rephrasing of existing demands by Ukraine and then repackaging them under a new name. No surprises, no new ideas, no breakthrough.
Today, Zelenskyy’s Peace Formula – a 10-point initiative and diplomatic platform that Ukraine’s President proposed to the world community to achieve a just conclusion to the war in the autumn of 2022 – seems to be outdated which is surrounded by the musty smell of the past. In light of this, for Zelenskyy, the fact that his new concept, the Victory Plan has not met with the enthusiasm he expected in Washington, is like a landslide. Moreover, in fact, the plan’s reception has been so unfavourable in the US that it has contributed to a growing number of critical voices among the allies. Some, including the countries of the new Friends of Peace platform believe the time has come for a peaceful settlement.
Some security policy experts see Zelenskyy’s visit to the US a diplomatic failure rather than a ’victory plan’. ’Despite the lukewarm reception of the Ukrainian ‘victory plan’ in Washington, Kyiv will continue to advocate for it as an effective tool to compel Russia to negotiate. In the domestic political arena, the lack of US approval for the Ukrainian proposals will enable Kyiv to shift the blame for any potential future failure on the front to its Western partners. Such a failure may compel Ukraine to initiate talks with Russia. ’, analyst for the Polish OSW Centre for Eastern Studies says.
Add to all this the fact that the US is about to elect a new president, and the inherent uncertainty will also have a significant impact on Ukraine. Deadlock. Not only for Zelenskyy, but also for the EU. In light of all this, guess what Zelenskyy’s next step was? After the failure of promoting the Victory Plan in the US, the Ukrainian President is back on tour in Europe: he has so far presented the details of the plan in London, Paris, Rome and Berlin. Certain aspects need to be agreed on, but partners have potential to implement it, he said.
From recent developments and comments, including that of the U.S. House Speaker Mike Jonhnson on 11 October saying ’I do not have an appetite for further Ukraine funding’, it is obvious that, sooner or later, the EU will be alone with the issue of financing Ukraine’s expenditure. With regard to this, two questions arise: first, whether the EU is capable of further funding Ukraine and, second, whether European citizens agree on this?
It is time to understand that economic realities in Europe have changed in the last couple of years as it is clearly indicated in Mario Draghi’s recent report on EU competitiveness. ’Many EU countries are rapidly rearming in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but 78 percent of the €75 billion EU countries spent on defense between June 2022 and June 2023 went outside the bloc, with 63 percent going to the U.S.’, Draghi said in his report.According to Draghi, the gap between the size of the EU’s economy and that of the U.S. is now 30 percent, from 15 percent in 2002 which means that Europe’s economy suffers a gradual decline.
All opinions and aspects considered, it would be in the best interests of Europeans if, abandoning its excessive – one might say unrealistic – geopolitical goals, the EU could find its way back to where it started – to be a great advocate for peace and dialogue between nations and a contributor to peace and security within the wider world. It is time to understand that the EU can only become a symbol of peace in the world again if it makes a real effort for a settlement in Ukraine and plays a leading role in the peace process, not in fuelling and financing war. On the other hand, if European mainstream politics remain unchanged, Ukraine fatigue can just further strengthen the far-right’s positions in Europe, this is something that also needs to be kept in mind.
’Today’s European Union resembles a Barbieland: a place prone to regard itself as more perfect than it really is – and harbouring some notable blind spots’, ECFR says in its recent analysis. It is high time to throw off the blinkers and eliminate the blind spots.