The Irish Times view on Ukraine: what happens when the guns go silent?

The key question will be to what extent European countries will be willing to fill the vacuum left in the wake of US withdrawal

Russian soldiers at an artillery position in the Kursk region of western Russia,    Photo: Nanna Heitmann/The New York Times
Russian soldiers at an artillery position in the Kursk region of western Russia, Photo: Nanna Heitmann/The New York Times

The intensifying clashes between Russian and Ukrainian forces in this first week of the new year suggest both are seeking to gain some advantage in advance of Donald Trump’s inauguration. Despite appalling casualties, Russia’s offensive in eastern Ukraine grinds on remorselessly. Likewise, the Ukrainian army has increased its efforts to expand the territory it holds in Russia’s Kursk region. Meanwhile, as expected, Ukraine has shut its last remaining gas pipeline from Russia to the EU.

When Ukraine launched its surprise Kursk incursion last summer, the move was viewed primarily as a feint to draw Russian attention away from its main theatre of operations. But alongside that objective – which was widely seen to have failed – was the assumption that Kyiv was seeking to acquire a bargaining chip for any future negotiations.

That second rationale looks even more relevant now, with expectations rising that some sort of cessation of hostilities becomes more probable once the new administraion is in place in Washington. There are many variables to consider, not least the sheer unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy posture. His nomination of Florida senator Marco Rubio as secretary of state may make an abrupt abandonment of Kyiv less likely but there is little or no appetite among US Republicans to continue supplying Ukraine’s war effort. And Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s allies in the EU will not be able to make up the resulting shortfall.

With opinion polls showing falling domestic support for continuing the war effort, Zelenskiy’s government faces the bleak prospect of a ceasefire that leaves Russia in control of at least one fifth of Ukraine. That falls very far short of Kyiv’s war aim of reclaiming full territorial sovereignty. Alternatively, emboldened by his gains and unmoved by the tens of thousands of Russian lives lost, Vladimir Putin could be tempted to press on with his own original aim of regime change and assimilation of Ukraine into the Russian orbit.

READ SOME MORE

That objective seems even more delusional now than when Putin launched this bloody war almost three years ago. “We are certain that everything will be fine,” he blandly told the Russian people in his annual New Year’s Eve address, but was vague and non-committal on the future progress of the “special military operation” in Ukraine and the inflationary challenges posed by an overheating war economy. Russia may have weathered Western sanctions better than many predicted but, like Ukraine, it might also be reaching an inflection point of war exhaustion.

If that does happen and the guns fall silent, the key question will be to what extent European countries will be willing to fill the vacuum left in the wake of US withdrawal by guaranteeing Ukraine’s security and possibly by putting troops on the ground to give effect to that guarantee.