UKRAINE - THE FIRST CRACKS?
UKRAINE – THE FIRST CRACKS?
When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 the first country to provided practical assistance in the shape of 3,000 NLAW, shoulder launched anti-tank weapons, was the UK. That was a catalyst for American support, followed somewhat reluctantly by France and Germany and eventually by all of NATO. Although Turkey and Hungary had reservations, support for Ukraine was firm, with the West providing weapons, intelligence and training. Originally NATO provided defensive weapons, to avoid escalation of the conflict, but when the UK was first to supply tanks and, with Denmark, the first to begin training Ukrainian pilots to fly the F16, the irrational policy of supplying only defensive weapons was abandoned. It has been the firm resolve of NATO that Russian aggression must not be allowed to succeed, for if it is then her appetite for a reconstitution of the Tsarist empire will only increase. Up to now that resolve has held.
Very recently, however, cracks have appeared. Slovakia had been a firm supporter of Ukraine supplying her with her own Soviet era MIG aircraft, and being one of the main supply routes for the supply of arms and war making materiel. On 1 October Slovakia had a general election and the party winning most seats was Smer-SD led by Robert Fico. He is currently putting together a coalition and has said ‘not one bullet for Ukraine’. Fico had previously been prime minister but was forced to resign amid accusations of corruption and complicity in the murder of a journalist. In this election he ran under a platform opposing sanctions against Russia and advocating a withdrawal of support for Ukraine.
More seriously the governing party in Poland, the Law and Justice Party, running for re-election on 15 October, has said that it will cease support to Ukraine in response to farmers’ protests that Ukrainian grain, now being exported through Poland since Russia failed to extend the agreement allowing export by sea from Odessa, is undercutting their own crops. Poland had been a staunch supporter of Ukraine, providing her with much of her own Soviet era vehicles, aircraft and equipment, besides being the UK’s main supply route to Ukraine.
In the USA many in the Republican party are recommending that no more money should be spent to support Ukraine, and if Donald Trump wins the presidential election in 2024, which is highly possible, then US foreign policy is likely to be directed towards China and the Far East rather than Europe, Should US support dry up then France and Germany, initially reluctant to take an anti-Russian stance, may well pull out of the coalition, and that leaves the UK as the lone major ally of Ukraine. With the possible opting out of the US and the two major EU nations, NATO article 5 would seem less and less likely and Putin may well feel confident in threatening the UK with consequences unless she withdraws her support for Ukraine.
While the British Armed Forces are well trained, well equipped and well led, they are tiny and would be pushed to field more than one division on land and then only for weeks rather than months. So far the UK has delivered 300,000 artillery shells to Ukraine, but already 105 mm shells for the thirty-six L119[*] howitzers supplied by the UK are in very short supply, with guns in some units restricted to firing five a day[†]. Stocks of the British Army’s munitions, already hollowed out by successive governments since the end of the Cold War, are now even lower with the gifting of much to Ukraine, without any major manufacturing effort to replace them. Even in the unlikely event of a massive programme of re-armament and increase in manpower, which neither the present governing party nor its possible successor after the general election due in 2024 appears likely to implement, such would take years, not months. Faced with Russian threats and without the guarantee of military support from NATO the British choices would seem to be an abject climb down, or pressing the nuclear button. Britain would not consider the latter option as a first strike, and would therefore have to accept Russian demands to cease training Ukrainian soldiers and providing them with war materiel. Ukraine would lose the war, Putin’s position would be assured, and the restoration of the Tsarist empire would continue with the next probable target the Balkan states, part of Russia until 1918, then annexed by Russia in 1940 and independent again only after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The Greek prophetess Cassandra was fated by the god Apollo to always foretell the truth, but never to be believed.
[*] A variant of the L118, of which there are 126 in service with the British army, adapted so that it can fire US 105mm ammunition as well as British.
[†] In an intensive battle a gun could well be expected to fire up to 100 rounds a day, although prolonged firing at this rate would eventually require a replacement barrel.
Yes, the L&J did pretty well but not well enough to form a majority. I think you are right that support for Ukraine had a lot to do with it, although the agricultural lobby is strong - viz the long drawn out negotiations over the CAP when Poland was joining the EU. Tusk is a sensible fellow so we can probably breathe again.
Looks like the Law and Justice Party ended up getting trounced in the election. I wonder how much it had to do with their threat to end support to Ukraine?