As a Ukrainian, and as someone who has been involved in security policy for 30 years, give or take, I do not agree that Putin will win. However, I am in favor of the thesis that the West has to wake up.
The West has largely lost the ability to translate and understand what is happening. You remember the famous movie Lost in Translation. The West is having an internal discussion. What does the current situation mean? How do we interpret the results on the frontline, the results of the counteroffensive, what is happening in the European Union, and what is happening in the United States (regarding the confrontation between the administration and the Republicans)? How will the campaign that is unfolding in the United States affect this? Can we predict some kind of strategic perspective for at least a year? This discussion, in a sense, eats away at the West.
Sometimes, it is a discussion for the sake of discussion, not for the sake of getting a result and agreeing on an action plan, because any debate is for something. I agree with The Economist's first thesis.
In the sense that Putin is accelerating his military economy, he is a dictator. If he's a dictator, he says something, and everyone starts doing it. Otherwise, someone's head is cut off. They can increase military production. If you look at the next year, even officially, they have almost 120 billion, plus about half of the military budget is hidden. That means that nearly 10%, according to various estimates, plus or minus 9.5% of their budget is military spending. This means focusing on the fact that the Russian elites, and not only Putin, are well aware that losing this war means losing power and a threat to their personal existence and to the way they make money in Russia today.
Such publications are beginning to influence Western opinion
The West must understand perfectly well that winning the war means raising the stakes. The whole logic of the West, "let's avoid any escalation," is still, if not dominant, essential for the discussion.
The second thing that sometimes not only worries me, but irritates me, is the inability to finally raise the stakes on another issue, the security model for Ukraine. That is, to say that Ukraine is part of the West, and not only will it be part of the European Union and NATO in the future, but "we will realize this in the near future" to show that the West protects Ukraine. This needs to be clarified. This thesis that "we will help Ukraine as long as it is needed" has begun to be perceived in Moscow as a weakness of the West.
So, in short, these publications in The Economist are not only discussed, of course, in the West, but they are dropping like bombs. They are also read and discussed here. Therefore, I agree with the first thesis and absolutely disagree with the second.
Nevertheless, there are more and more such publications. They are beginning to influence Western opinion – journalistic, expert, and political. We cannot ignore this.
Whether we will have to confront Russia without US money, I do not see such a betrayal yet. Please note that aid to us is being discussed as part of a large package, along with aid to Israel and Taiwan. It's becoming a challenging and controversial political issue against the backdrop of the upcoming presidential elections in Taiwan, which will take place in January. So, the Americans need to assemble this package. And everyone understands perfectly well that the Republicans will not pass the aid without getting money for the southern border. This is their number one political priority today.
For a lot of Republican voters, crime and drugs, especially fentanyl and other synthetic drugs coming across the border, are a personal challenge, a lifestyle challenge. 100,000 Americans in the 18-45 year old category alone die from fentanyl. Biden, by the way, was able to agree with Xi at a meeting in San Francisco that the Chinese would put a stop, maybe not a complete stop, but at least a partial stop to the export of chemicals needed to produce fentanyl. His victory is a crucial victory for many. That's why I feel the mood in Congress among Republicans is that they want to get this package; they want to get guarantees on the southern border, but at the same time, they are ready to vote for our aid, for Israeli aid, maybe for Taiwanese aid.
Is it good for us that all aid will be tied up in a single package? I'm not talking about Israel, of course, but Taiwan in the context of China. This is another geopolitical issue. I don't see that if the aid is postponed to the beginning of next year it will immediately come under some crazy doubts and questions. Yes, this is a difficult question because every day means something to us. Both financially and militarily. However, postponement does not mean cancellation.
The Economist writes, "Europe should be preparing for a potential cut in American military aid, regardless of who ends up in the White House. Instead, European leaders are acting as if the generous Joe Biden will always be at the helm." That's the conversation in the United States, and that's the conversation in Europe. It would be dishonest to ignore them. There is talk of reducing (though not critically) military aid. Such discussions are taking place in both expert and political circles. There are also discussions that financial assistance may be reduced.
This means a challenge for Europe because it will have to take on more responsibility. Europeans like to talk about strategic autonomy and the desire to become a geopolitical player. So far, Europe is not such a player. We are a chance for it to show its geopolitical weight and willingness to play geopolitically. So far, no one in Europe has really seen this desire.
Europeans already look at the American presidential campaign and say: "What if Trump comes in?" It could be a year from now. What if Trump starts to float the idea of withdrawing from NATO or limiting the American presence in NATO? What if Trump completely switches his focus to China? He has always been a real fan of focusing on Asia. There are such discussions in Europe, and they are very difficult.
As I said at the beginning, someone is lost in the translation of the actual situation around them. In Europe, not everyone, but someone is lost and is trying to look at the world from the point of view of guessing on coffee grounds. Europe has to say what its strategy is if the United States reduces its presence and support in Europe. This is a fundamental challenge for Europe. And this should be our common challenge with Europe.