According to the Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon has just over $5 billion in security assistance for Ukraine. According to the newspaper, this money may be enough for only a few months. Let me explain how to evaluate these figures. We should not look at these things too simplistically. It's not a bank account or a pile of dollars. These are much more complicated processes, because we know this is a budget within which existing weapons in the US Armed Forces' stockpiles can be transferred. In return, compensation from production then restores the reserves.
This is more than just a process of regular purchases. So we should not calculate the averages, or what we spent in previous months and how long it will last. But in any case, the issue of international support is becoming more worrisome. Apart from purely budgetary issues, we know what is happening in the United States. The political situation there is a problem for Ukrainians. But there are still many opportunities to salvage the relationship. Meanwhile, improving our relationship with the US will also help us with the rest of our allies.
In recent weeks, we have witnessed something that should not have happened – the deterioration of relations between Ukraine and Poland: unnecessary discussions, debates, and mutual demarches. The results of the elections in Slovakia are something that Ukraine cannot influence. Still, at least, we should focus on minimizing the adverse aspects of their incoming government. I would also like to mention a letter sent to the Ukrainian authorities regarding the conditions for continued support from the United States. That is, it is directly linked to the fact that Ukraine must fulfill certain obligations for the support of the United States to be guaranteed.
How will the architecture of Western support, primarily military support, look like next year?
It is difficult to predict. On the one hand, there are constant statements and confirmations that our partners will support us for as long as necessary. Then, when we or someone tries to get specifics on what "as long as necessary" means and how they see it, various nuances and political reservations begin to emerge about whether a convincing military defeat of Russia can be allowed, which could lead to a collapse, and so on and so forth. But these are variables that Ukraine can control only to a certain extent.
All of this should be checked against the main goal, which is Ukraine's strategy to win the war
The fact that support may weaken is a natural process, and many people have also warned about this. There is war fatigue (so they say) in the West. They have priorities that may also affect the redistribution of these resources. But there are also ways to minimize such risks, at least. First of all, this is what I have already mentioned, that every effort should be made to prevent such excesses with our closest sincere partners. When discussing, for example, some of Ukraine's trade or political priorities, all of this should be checked against the main goal, which is Ukraine's strategy to win the war. Does it work to achieve this goal, or is it counterproductive?
The second point I would also like to mention is that we are dealing with partners who are established, developed democracies. A lot depends on public opinion there. This is another area we need to work on constantly to ensure that Western societies support Ukraine. It will influence politicians and their priorities. So, these areas need to be worked on constantly, which will protect us to some extent from unpleasant surprises with international support.
Recently, the defense industry held a forum in Ukraine. There were reports about how many countries and how many companies were present. Not necessarily everyone present will start these investments or joint ventures immediately, just as those who were absent can still be fruitful partners. I want to mention Poland again. Even if there were no representatives of Polish companies there, Poland is one of our most promising partners in the field of defense cooperation.
At the same time, at least two key issues may prevent Western investors and businesses from entering Ukraine. The first is the security aspect. Again, this is something where Ukraine has limited influence. Although it is also being worked on, there is serious evidence that Ukraine is progressing. Despite all these constant attacks on the territory, Ukraine can repair and produce new equipment.
The second is the investment climate. Again, I want to mention that letter. However, it is only a draft. It was unofficially published in the Ukrainian media. Still, it clearly outlines the essence of the problem that can prevent foreign investors from coming here more than even Russian missile or drone strikes. That is, until Ukraine has a favorable climate regarding justice and interference of law enforcement agencies in business activities, it is premature to say that joint defense enterprises will be seriously developed.
Der Spiegel writes that Ukraine has become the largest buyer of German weapons this year. In less than ten months, purchases amounted to 3.3 billion euros. Let's look back over at least a year, let alone two. Germany has simply revolutionized its approach to helping Ukraine and, in the broader context, changing its foreign policy to provide international support. Today, if we start listing or mentioning at least a few examples, look at the tanks and anti-aircraft systems. German weapons are probably one of the most critical elements of the current and future Ukrainian military security system.
Therefore, of course, we should be very interested in the entry of German defense companies into the Ukrainian market. We should focus on something other than just procurement here because it is likely not about direct purchases but transfers. The vital issue is Ukraine's solvency. Currently, the funds used to cover these defense procurements or transfers are an extreme situation. However, in the future, Ukraine should be able to either pay for it from its own budget or secure external financing. For example, as the United States does for several countries. Or it could set up its own production. This should be done in a complex program.
The head of the German parliament's defense committee, Marie-Agnes Straka-Zimmermann, believes that Ukraine has the right to use German Taurus cruise missiles against military targets in Russia. I am sure we will eventually pass this stage if there are such statements. We remember when Ukraine was not allowed to receive any lethal weapons at all, because it would escalate the conflict. We remember that Ukraine could not receive tanks and airplanes because it would escalate the conflict and cause a nuclear disaster. By the way, an excellent article was recently published, I will not advertise this publication; that compiles two years of what steps were taken, how these Russian red lines have moved, and how frequent these statements were. So, according to this infographic, somewhere in the last two months, Russia has practically stopped being able to scare anyone because all these red lines have constantly been successfully moved. As we can see, except for bluffing, fortunately, Russia can no longer do anything like that.
As for whether there will be a permit for how to use weapons, there was no formal ban, which means that this is an agreement, so there is no need to give permission. It can be a diplomatic game, that is, making some agreed statements, almost a protest, but the missiles will be used for military purposes against the Russian Federation, which are absolutely legitimate during the war.
The New York Times writes that Russia is preparing to test an experimental cruise missile with a nuclear warhead, the Burevestnik. The last time Russia conducted any nuclear tests was near the village of Nyonoksi in the Arkhangelsk region, and there was an incident there that left everything contaminated with radiation. About a dozen and a half attempts to conduct these tests failed. During the last test, some of the test designers died. How this time will end, if there will be any tests at all, or how they end; well, let's just wait and see.
As for this idea of developing nuclear-powered missiles, such attempts were made many decades ago, including in the United States, and they were stopped because it is essentially a flying Chornobyl. This holds no matter where the missile goes, where it hits, at what stage it explodes, or even if it is a failed launch. That is, this is a Chornobyl that will be dispersed along the entire flight path of this missile. So, in general, this weapon should not be developed further, let alone be used.
Russia may be doing this as a bluff. Just as the use or the possibility of a thermonuclear explosion in the upper atmosphere, the use of tactical nuclear weapons to stop the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the south is being discussed in the Russian information space as something normal. That is, on the one hand, this may be a bluff. But, on the other hand, Russia often ends up believing its own propaganda. That is a rather disturbing and dangerous trend.