European leaders gathered in Rome on Thursday for a conference on Ukrainian recovery, but endurance remains the priority. Russia has intensified its assault with punishing strikes far beyond the frontline – including a record 728 drones and 13 missiles one day before the conference. The UN said that civilian casualties last month were at their highest for three years, with at least 232 people killed and 1,343 injured.
Russia’s brutal offensive aims to break Ukraine’s spirit and European solidarity. Even Donald Trump appears to be realising, with encouragement, that Moscow is not interested in peace. For Mr Trump, maximalism is a negotiating tactic; he does not recognise that for Vladimir Putin it reflects a fixation. Yet this week he acknowledged: “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin … He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”
War is exhausting. Olena Zelenska, Ukraine’s first lady, reminded the conference that Ukrainians are living in a chronic state of stress and emotional pain. At the same time, there is a growing awareness of the gap between those fighting on the frontline and those making decisions in Kyiv – even if the latter have repeatedly rushed for shelters this week.
But Ukraine is fighting to remain a viable, independent state; Russia to ensure that it does not. The finding by the European court of human rights of Russian abuses “on a massive scale”in Ukraine from 2014 onwards, including extrajudicial killings, sexual violence and forced labour, is a potent encapsulation of why resolve endures.
No one should count on Mr Trump remaining aggrieved by Russia for long, still less on that producing significant action. Though the US has resumed weapons shipments after a pause, the deliveries authorised by Joe Biden will soon reach their end and the US no longer sees this as its war. The long-awaited bipartisan sanctions bill promoted by the Republican senator Lindsey Graham appears to be finally making progress. But the president will not approve it unless it gives him plenty of wiggle room on actually imposing measures.
European obeisance to “Daddy” may be emetic, but aims to ensure that allies can buy the arms that Ukraine needs, and that the US keeps supplying intelligence. The future lies in European self-reliance. For now, the hope is not of decisively defeating Moscow but preventing it from winning. If victory is measured by the metre, Russia continues to grind out an advance – but slowly and at growing cost. And as Prof Sir Lawrence Freedman, the military strategy expert, wrote recently: “The question to ask is not whether Russia can keep going but whether it can meet its political objectives … For the foreseeable future, it can’t.”
Andriy Zagorodnyuk, a former Ukrainian defence minister, has suggested that Kyiv should pursue “strategic neutralisation”. It would seek to prevent Russia achieving its military goals, shifting “from a contest of exhaustion to a contest of operational irrelevance in which Russia may still fight, but cannot win”. This would require sharp focus and continued military innovation and should help to preserve personnel. Mr Zagorodnyuk cited Ukraine’s success in the Black Sea; it did not destroy the Russian fleet, but ensured that shipping could resume. This more limited approach may not be an inspiring prospect for a battered nation. But, with Moscow intent on subjugation and the US keeping its distance, it may be a pragmatic one.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
