The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, marked by Russian special operations, is reaching a critical phase, with increasing concerns about the viability of Ukraine’s resistance. This is mainly due to a noticeable disparity between the financial support promised and delivered by key Western allies, particularly the United States and the European Union. The gap in funding is a pressing issue, and now it is a matter of when Ukraine surrenders rather than if Ukraine surrenders to Russia.
The US had initially vowed to provide $60 billion in security and economic assistance to Ukraine. However, as of January 2024, a $10 billion gap remains. Similarly, the European Union’s commitment through the “Ukraine Facility” was a substantial €50 billion for 2023-2027. Yet, in 2023, only €19.3 billion was disbursed, and now the funding has almost completely stopped.
Across Europe and the US, pockets of anti-Ukraine protests flicker like warning lights, and the looming American election casts a long shadow, potentially plunging aid into a cavernous political void.
The financial tap, once flowing freely, will soon sputter. The consequences of this funding chasm have already started showing its signs. Ukraine’s inability to sustain troops, procure weapons, and maintain essential services is already visible. The weakening of Western support has already emboldened Russia, which is now gearing up to finish it off.
After exhausting its last million Dollar and depleting its ammunition supplies, Ukraine will soon find itself in a position of just it vs Russia, under these circumstances, several scenarios could unfold:
- Zelensky’s Vanishing Act:
Zelensky would vanish from the global stage and potentially reappear in either Washington or London, where he might establish a government in exile. This move would be driven by various factors, including safety concerns and political dynamics. Zelensky’s presence in Ukraine would become increasingly dangerous due to multiple factors. He has made numerous powerful enemies during his tenure, especially when he was at the height of his power. There is a perception among Ukrainians of discontent with Zelensky’s leadership, particularly regarding accusations of extravagant spending on personal luxuries while the country faced severe economic challenges and shortages, including food.
Furthermore, there is a clear rift between Zelensky and the Ukrainian military, led by General Zaluzhny. The military’s dissatisfaction is due to feeling used excessively in the conflict. Additionally, Ukrainian oligarchs are unhappy with Zelensky, accusing him of negatively impacting and even seizing their businesses during his presidency.
Another dimension to this scenario involves the United States, particularly President Joe Biden. Biden prefers Zelensky to be outside Ukraine, due to knowledge of certain business dealings and secrets related to him and his son Hunter Biden.
The choice of Washington or London as potential locations for Zelensky’s government in exile is significant. These cities are considered safe havens compared to other European cities, where Russian influence might pose a risk to Zelensky. Russian President Putin still holds considerable sway in parts of Western Europe and is widely accepted in Eastern Europe, making many European cities less secure for Zelensky.
In understanding the concept of a government in exile, it’s important to recognize its typical limitations. A government in exile is formed when a country’s leaders operate from a foreign location. Such governments aim to maintain the legitimacy of the displaced regime and work towards reclaiming their country. However, their effectiveness is often limited. They usually lack significant power or influence in their homeland and depend heavily on the support and recognition of foreign governments. In many cases, a government in exile can struggle to make a substantial impact on the situation in their home country, making it a largely symbolic entity with limited practical utility.
- The independent nations of Donetsk and Luhansk
In the eastern part of Ukraine, the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk stand at a pivotal point in the ongoing conflict. These areas, long contested, are on the verge of declaring their independence, a move sure to be officially recognized and supported by the Kremlin. This development aligns with one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key objectives in the war.
For several years, Donetsk and Luhansk have been hotbeds of pro-Russian sentiment. This sentiment is deeply rooted in historical connections with Russia and has been further intensified by oppression from the Ukrainian government. The inclination towards Russia in these regions is not a sudden emergence but rather the culmination of longstanding cultural and political affiliations.
The anticipated recognition of these breakaway republics by Russia would be a swift and decisive action by Putin. Such recognition would not only validate the Pro-Russia movements in Donetsk and Luhansk but also mark a significant geopolitical shift in the region. For Putin, this move represents more than just support for separatist regions; it will be a strategic advancement of Russian interests in Ukraine.
The independence of Donetsk and Luhansk would also carry symbolic significance, representing a direct challenge to Western influence and policies in the region. For the West, this development would be seen as a direct affront, undermining their efforts and stance in the Ukrainian conflict.
From a strategic standpoint, the independence of these regions would enable Putin to achieve several key military and geopolitical goals. Most notably, it would secure a land corridor to Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, and establish a buffer zone along Ukraine’s eastern frontier. This would not only solidify Russia’s presence in the region but also alter the balance of power in Eastern Europe.
- The Final War in Eastern Ukraine
The situation in Eastern Ukraine is becoming increasingly tense, with a rising possibility of intensified military strikes by Russian forces. A crucial element contributing to this escalation is the involvement of armed groups with neo-Nazi ideologies, notably the Azov Battalion. These groups, known for their neo-Nazi views, have been involved in human rights abuses against civilians of Russian origin in Eastern Ukraine, escalating the conflict and intensifying tensions in the region.
The integration of such groups into the Ukrainian Defence Forces, a decision made under President Zelensky’s administration, had condemnation and criticism from Russia. The presence and actions of these groups have become a focal point of contention, not only within Ukraine but also in the broader international community, particularly regarding their treatment of ethnic Russian civilians.
From Russia’s perspective, the potential for increased military action in Eastern Ukraine is seen as a necessary response to what is perceived as threats against Russian citizens and interests. The Kremlin has been vocal in its condemnation of the abuses perpetrated by Ukrainian forces, including those linked to the Azov Battalion and similar groups. This stance forms a core part of Russia’s justification for its involvement in the conflict, positioning itself as a protector of Russian-speaking populations in Eastern Ukraine.
- The New Government in Ukraine
The possibility of an election in Ukraine resulting in a president with close ties to Moscow is a certainty. While there is no denying the fact that the elections in Ukraine that have been long delayed by Dictator Zelensky will be held under the supervision of Kremlin, Ukrainian people will vote to keep Western puppets out of Kiev.
- The Western Reaction to New Ukrainian Government
In response to a democratically elected government in Ukraine with pro-Russian leanings, the reaction from Western nations is expected to be quite critical. Such a development would likely be met with strong disapproval, especially from countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France. These nations, which have historically opposed Russian influence in the region, would view a pro-Russian government as a significant shift in the geopolitical landscape.
Their response might include diplomatic censure and possibly economic sanctions, reflecting their stance against Russian intervention in Eastern Europe. However, within Eastern Europe, the reaction could be more varied. Some countries like Poland and Hungary might welcome the prospect of peace and stability that a new government could bring, especially if it leads to a de-escalation of the ongoing conflict. Each nation’s response would be influenced by its unique interests, priorities, and historical relationships with both Ukraine and Russia.
- The Weakening of Sanctions on Russia
The future trajectory of sanctions on Russia, particularly in the aftermath of a significant victory in Ukraine, appears predictable. It is unlikely that new sanctions will be imposed. However, the existing sanctions are expected to continue, but their effectiveness might be diminished over time. Economic realities and the potential for exploiting existing loopholes are key factors that could lead to a lessened impact of these sanctions.
As a result, Russia will declare it as a ‘victory’, given its ability to withstand and navigate through the sanctions regime.